»!»• 


V 


n  /;V 1 


OCT  ii>  1923  ] 

^2S!CAL 


Division  'BX85C12 

NS*i 

Section 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/schisminmethodis00norw_0 


OCT  19  1923 

A - 


3/5L 


The  Schism  in  the 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

1844: 


A  Study  of  Slavery  and  Ecclesiastical  Politics 


BY 


l/ 


JOHN  NELSON  NORWOOD,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D. 

Professor  of  History  in  Alfred  University. 
Sometime  Fellow  in  American  History  in  the 
University  of  Michigan  and  in 
Cornell  University 


Published  by  Alfred  University 
The  Alfred  Press,  Alfred,  N.  Y. 
1923 


Copyright  1923 
By  J.  Nelson  Norwood 


ALFRED  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 
VOLUME  I 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  I.  Early  Methodism  and  Slavery .  9 

Chapter  II.  Agitations  and  Secessions .  23 

Chapter  III.  Division  Becomes  Inevitable .  58 

Chapter  IV.  The  Plan  of  Separation  and  the  Establish¬ 
ment  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South  .  82 

Chapter  V.  The  Methodist  Church  Repudiates  the 

Plan  of  Separation .  102 

Chapter  VI.  The  Border  Conflict .  126 

Chapter  VII.  The  Settlement  of  the  Property  Question.  147 

Appendix  I.  The  Constitution  and  Government  of  the 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1844 .  177 

Appendix  II.  The  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine,  or 

The  Plan  of  Separation .  182 

Appendix  III.  Political  Implications  of  the  Schism .  187 

Bibliography  .  195 

Index  .  218 


Map 


PREFACE 


The  original  plan  of  this  work  contemplated  trac¬ 
ing  the  disruptive  influence  of  slavery  in  all  the 
churches,  but  as  the  work  progressed  and  a  need  was 
perceived  to  limit  its  scope,  the  study  was  confined  to 
that  church  which,  of  them  all,  was  most  severely  torn 
by  the  slavery  conflict.  The  experiences  of  the  other 
churches  also  present  problems  deserving  of  study,  but 
their  problems  differ  from  those  of  the  Methodists. 
The  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  churches 
had  strong  organizations,  but  they  lacked  the  emotional 
element  to  which  the  radical  abolitionist  movement 
most  appealed.  The  Presbyterian  and  Baptist 
churches  possessed  the  requisite  emotional  element, 
but  they  lacked  the  strong  national  organization.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  combined  both  factors;  it 
had  the  proper  material  for  an  emotional  appeal  to  act 
upon,  and  it  had  a  well-knit  polity.  In  it  were  united 
explosive  material  and  rigid  structure.  The  result 
was  that  while  other  denominations  had  suffered  in 
slavery  struggles,  nowhere  was  the  issue  so  clear-cut 
or  the  outcome  so  destructive  to  the  historic  church 
as  among  the  Methodists. 

The  disruption  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
is  a  conspicuous  incident  in  that  great  drama  of  Ameri¬ 
can  History,  with  slavery  in  the  center  of  the  stage, 
which  preceded,  and  produced,  the  Civil  War.  Regarded 
not  merely  as  a  theme  in  ecclesiastical  history,  but  as  a 
proper  field  for  the  secular  historian,  a  study  of  the 
Methodist  schism  should  reveal  its  significance  for  the 
political  and  social  life  of  the  time,  and  help  us  to 
determine  to  what  extent  Clay  and  Calhoun  and  Web- 


ster  were  right  in  their  judgment  of  the  effect  that  a 
division  of  the  churches  must  have  upon  the  continu¬ 
ance  of  political  unity  in  the  nation.  It  should  bring 
out,  too,  many  suggestive  parallels  with  the  political 
secession  that  was  eventually  attempted.  The  rise  of 
radical  abolitionism  in  the  political  field  is  faithfully 
reflected  in  the  ecclesiastical  story ;  the  stormy  scenes 
in  the  national  legislature  find  their  match  in  the  ses¬ 
sions  of  the  General  Conferences  of  1836,  1840  and 
1844;  as  the  Civil  War  was  precipitated  by  the  de¬ 
termination  of  the  South  to  carry  slavery  into  the  ter¬ 
ritories,  thus  securing  both  vindication  and  political 
weight,  while  the  North  was  equally  determined  to 
keep  them  free  from  slavery,  so  the  Methodist  schism 
was  made  inevitable  by  the  entrance  of  slavery  into 
the  episcopacy,  the  South  being  determined  that  it 
should  stay  there,  both  as  justification  and  as  a  source 
of  power,  with  the  North  equally  determined  that  it 
should  not.  The  same  quarrels  over  constitutional  in¬ 
terpretation,  the  same  charges  that  the  whole  trouble 
arose  from  the  evil  designs  of  a  few  leading  con¬ 
spirators,  the  same  inability  on  each  side  to  understand 
the  opposing  point  of  view,  the  same  division  into 
northern  radicals,  southern  radicals,  and  moderates,  in 
short  the  same  intense  sectionalism  appeared  in  the 
ecclesiastical  as  in  the  political  crisis.  The  church 
crisis  is,  indeed,  the  political  crisis  in  miniature.  And 
it  is  more.  For  the  church  proceeded  to  an  actual 
Plan  of  Separation,  an  agreement  to  let  the  South  set 
lip  ecclesiastically  for  itself.  The  consequent  quarrels 
over  the  boundary  line  and  the  division  of  the  church 
property  suggest  by  analogy  some  of  the  possible 
consequences  of  Confederate  success.  And  it  may  be 
that  the  ecclesiastical  border  struggle  in  western  Vir¬ 
ginia,  by  intensifying  sectionalism  within  the  Old 
Dominion  helped  to  pave  the  way  for  the  erection  of 
a  new  state  when  the  civil  conflict  burst  forth. 


The  psychological  side  of  the  denominational  con¬ 
troversy  also  has  received  attention.  The  way  that 
well-meaning,  earnest-minded,  religions  men  conduct 
themselves  in  tense  and  trying  circumstances  is  a  source 
of  unending  interest  to  those  who  enjoy  the  study  of 
human  nature.  The  inevitableness  of  the  division,  the 
impossibility  of  moving  in  any  direction  at  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  without  damaging  some  great  in¬ 
terest  and  dividing  the  church,  placed  good  men  in  a 
fearful  dilemma.  On  the  whole,  and  we  are  glad  to 
say  it,  they  acquitted  themselves  as  became  their  stand¬ 
ing  and  profession. 

The  problem  here  studied  bristles  with  moot  ques¬ 
tions.  The  writer  has  not  hesitated  to  express  his  own 
judgment  on  men  and  measures,  but  no  one  realizes 
more  fully  than  he,  that  all  of  the  questions  are  two- 
sided  at  least,  and  that  another,  using  the  same  ma¬ 
terials  might  come  to  different  conclusions.  He  hopes 
that  the  materials  here  embodied  may  aid  the  reader 
in  correcting  those  errors  of  judgment  which  the  writer 
must  unavoidably  have  permitted  to  creep  into  his  work. 
Throughout,  a  lively  and  charitable  appreciation  of  the 
tremendous  difficulties  which  faced  the  men  prominent 
in  these  controversies  has  been  allowed  to  mellow  any 
harsh  criticisms  that  may  have  come  to  mind.  Certain¬ 
ly  naught  has  been  set  down  in  malice. 

In  the  production  of  this  study  a  mass  of  news¬ 
paper  and  pamphlet  material  has  been  used  which,  it 
is  believed,  was  never  before  utilized  for  a  similar  pur¬ 
pose.  The  prominent  Methodist  weeklies,  especially 
“The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  (now  “The 
Christian  Advocate”),  “The  Richmond  Christian  Ad¬ 
vocate”  and  the  “Advocates”  published  at  Cincinnati, 
Pittsburgh,  Charleston,  Nashville  and  elsewhere,  to¬ 
gether  with  “Zion’s  Herald,”  “Zion’s  Watchman,”  the 


May  Collection  of  Anti-Slavery  Pamphlets  in  the  Cor¬ 
nell  University  Library,  and  the  extensive  collection  of 
pamphlets,  periodicals,  documents  and  general  works 
in  the  Drew  Theological  Seminary  Library  at  Madison, 
New  Jersey,  furnished  the  chief  sources  of  this  work. 
The  only  previous  book  that  has  made  large  use  of  the 
church  newspapers  in  dealing  with  the  same  topic  is 
Charles  Elliott’s  “The  Great  Secession.”  Prepared 
under  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  as  an 
official  account  of  the  events  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  in  reality  a  docu¬ 
mentary  history  of  the  schism  by  one  of  the  chief  par¬ 
ticipants,  consisting  largely  of  newspaper  clippings 
with  some  analysis  of,  and  running  comment  upon,  the 
same. 

The  author  wishes  to  express  his  appreciation 
of  the  assistance  given  him  in  a  multitude  of  ways  by 
Professors  Charles  H.  Hull  and'  Julian  P.  Bretz  of  Cor¬ 
nell  University  under  whose  guidance  the  work  has 
been  brought  to  completion,  and  by  Professors  Claude 
H.  VanTyne,  and  Frederic  L.  Paxon  (then  a  col¬ 
league  of  Professor  VanTyne  at  the  University  of 
Michigan),  who  watched  over  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
task.  The  author  cannot  speak  too  highly  of  the  kind¬ 
ly  consideration  and  courteous  assistance  he  received 
at  the  hands  of  Samuel  G.  Ayres,  then  Librarian  at 
Drew  Theological  Seminary  (now  Librarian  at  Gar¬ 
rett  Biblical  Institute),  where  the  bulk  of  these  investi¬ 
gations  was  made.  Thanks  also  are  due  to  the  author¬ 
ities  at  the  libraries  of  Cornell  University  and  the 
University  of  Michigan,  the  Detroit  Public  Library, 
the  Methodist  Book  Concern  at  Cincinnati,  the  State 
Library  at  Charleston,  W.  Va.,  the  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress,  the  Boston  Public  Library  and  the  New  England 
Methodist  Historical  Society  Library  in  Boston  for 
their  help.  Finally  he  must  not  forget  the  painstaking 


work  as  a  copyist  performed  by  Mr.  Lloyd  R.  Watson 
of  Alfred,  N.  Y.,  to  whose  careful  investigations  also 
are  due  many  features,  and  the  first  complete  draft,  of 
the  map. 

This  work  was  accepted  by  the  faculty  of  the 
graduate  school  of  Cornell  University  as  a  thesis  for 
the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 

J.  NELSON  NORWOOD. 


Alfred,  N.  Y.,  February  10,  1923. 


4 


Chapter  I 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


The  Methodists  have  always  and  justly  considered 
their  church  a  pioneer  anti-slavery  institution.  John 
Wesley,  its  founder  and  early  leader,  together  with 
most  of  his  associates,  was  outspoken  in  his  denunci¬ 
ation  of  slavery  and  this  original  bias  was  a  powerful 
influence  in  shaping  the  policy  and  sentiments  of  the 
rising  denomination.  In  his  “ Thoughts  upon  Slavery,” 
written  in  1774,  Wesley  struck  “at  the  root  of  this 
complicated  villany,  ”  denying  that  slavery  could  be 
in  any  degree  consistent  with  natural  justice.  He 
placed  man-buyers  on  a  level  with  man-stealers,  and 
called  on  God  to  pity  the  poor  down-trodden  blacks.1 
In  1787,  writing  encouragingly  to  the  newly  formed 
Abolition  Committee,  he  expressed  the  hope  that  it 
would  attack  not  merely  the  slave  trade,  its  prime 
object,  but  also  “the  shocking  abomination  of  slavery” 
itself.2  Only  a  few  days  before  his  death,  he  wrote 
Wilberforce,  rejoicing  in  the  glorious  enterprise  of 
destroying  the  execrable  villany,  which  he  character¬ 
ized  as  the  scandal  of  religion,  of  England,  and  of 
human  nature.  “Go  on”.  .  .,  he  added  with  emphasis, 
“till  even  American  slavery,  the  vilest  that  ever  saw 
the  sun,  shall  vanish  before  it.”3 


1  Wesley,  “Thoughts  Upon  Slavery,”  “Works,”  (First  American 
Complete  and  Standard  Edition),  VI.  286,  292,  293. 

2  Clarkson,  “Hist,  of  the  Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade,”  II.  63. 

3  Tyerman,  “J.  Wesley,”  III.  650. 


10  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

The  good  Dr.  Coke,  one  of  the  first  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  was  in  full  sympathy  with 
the  anti-slavery  views  of  his  chief,  and  got  himself  into 
trouble  in  America  by  his  outspoken  references  to  the 
subject  in  the  pulpit  and  in  private  conversation.4 

Like-minded  was  Bishop  Francis  Asbury,  as  may 
readily  be  seen  from  his  interesting  “Journal.”  In  1776 
he  wrote,  “After  preaching  at  the  Point,  I  met  the 
class,  and  then  met  some  black  people,  some  of  whose 
unhappy  masters  forbid  their  coming  for  religious 
instruction.  How  will  the  sons  of  oppression  answer 
for  their  conduct  when  the  great  Proprietor  of  all  shall 
call  them  to  account !  ”  5  Four  years  later  this  entry 
occurs,  “I  spoke  to  some  select  friends  about  slave¬ 
keeping,  but  they  could  not  bear  it :  this  I  know,  God 
will  plead  the  cause  of  the  oppressed,  though  it  gives 
offence  to  say  so  here.  0  Lord,  banish  the  infernal 
spirit  of  slavery  from  thy  dear  Zion.”6  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  one  of  the  first  and  ablest  native  American 
Methodist  preachers,  was  born  and  brought  up  in  slave 
territory.  Though  for  a  time  a  slaveholder  himself,  he 
became  so  impressed  with  the  wickedness  of  slavehold¬ 
ing  that  he  liberated  all  his  blacks,  and  was  known 
thereafter  as  a  strong  anti-slavery  advocate.  7 

Such  was  the  spirit  of  the  men  8  who  molded  the 
life  of  this  virile  young  church.  Other  forces  aided 
them.  A  new  spirit  was  abroad  in  the  world.  Anti¬ 
slavery  fitted  admirably  with  the  humanitarian  feeling 
that  accompanied  the  era  of  political  revolutions.  The 


4  Drew,  “Coke,”  138-41. 

5  “Journal,”  I.  187,  (June  23). 

6  “Ibid.,”  374,  (June  4,  1780). 

7  N.  Bangs,  “Life  of  Garrettson,”  34. 

8  Rev.  George  Whitefield  was  an  exception  among  these  early 
leaders.  He  bought  slaves  for  the  benefit  of  his  Georgia  orphanage. 
Tyerman,  “Whitefield,”  II.  169. 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


11 


inconsistency  of  claiming  natural  rights  for  the  white 
man  while  denying  them  to  the  black  man  was  bound 
to  be  appreciated  more  and  more,  especially  by  Ameri¬ 
cans.  9  The  Methodists  personified  the  new  spirit. 

Early  Methodist  immigrants  appeared  in  America 
between  1763  and  1776.  Two  centers  of  activity  were 
established  at  about  the  same  time — one  in  Maryland, 
and  the  other  in  New  York  City. 10  As  the  work 
grew,  Mr.  Wesley  was  appealed  to  for  direction  and 
counsel.  A  definite  organization  was  evolving  and 
the  first  formal  conference  of  American  Methodist 
preachers  was  held  in  Philadelphia  (1773)  11 .  In 
spite  of  the  strong  feeling  of  the  leaders,  and  partly 
perhaps  because  the  people  were  not  ready  for  it, 
no  action  on  slavery  was  taken  before  the  Baltimore 
conference  held  in  April,  1780.  Its  minutes  contain, 
in  the  familiar  catechetical  style  of  primitive  Method¬ 
ism,  a  vigorous  declaration  on  slavery  as  follows : — 

“  Quest.  16.  Ought  not  this  Conference  to  require 
those  travelling  preachers  who  hold  slaves  to  give 
promises  to  set  them  free? 

“Yes. 

“Quest.  17.  Does  this  Conference  acknowledge 
that  slavery  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and 
nature,  and  hurtful  to  society ;  contrary  to  the  dictates 
of  conscience  and  pure  religion,  and  doing  that  which 
we  would  not  others  should  do  to  us  and  ours?  Do 


9  Locke,  “Anti-Slavery  in  America ...  1619-1808,”  1-2. 

This  feeling  showed  itself  in  the  wave  of  opposition  to  the  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  slave  trade,  and  in  the  emancipatory  laws  enacted  in 
the  North  where  slavery  had  its  weakest  economic  hold.  “Ibid.,”  74-80 
and  chap.  V. 

10  For  discussion  of  these  beginnings  see  Wakeley,  “Lost  Chap¬ 
ters,”  34-36. 

11  “Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences,”  I.  5. 


12  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

we  pass  our  disapprobation  on  all  our  friends  who  keep 
slaves,  and  advise  their  freedom? 

“Yes.”  12 

In  1783  a  conference  dealt  particularly  with  the 
local  preachers.  They  were  to  be  faithfully  warned, 
with  the  intimation  that  at  the  next  conference  it  might 
be  necessary  to  suspend  the  recalcitrant  slaveholders 
among  them.  13  Equally  advanced  was  the  action 
taken  at  the  spring  meeting  in  1784.  It  dealt  both 
with  the  preachers  and  with  private  members.  If 
Methodists  bought  slaves  to  hold  and  use,  they  might 
be  expelled  after  due  warning,  and  under  no  circum¬ 
stances  could  they  be  permitted  to  sell  slaves.  The 
local  preachers  in  Maryland,  Delaware,  Pennsylvania 
and  New  Jersey,  who  would  not  free  their  slaves  when 
they  could  legally  do  so,  were  to  be  suspended,  while 
the  local  preachers  of  Virginia  were  to  be  given  an¬ 
other  year  in  which  to  comply.  Traveling  preachers 
refusing  to  comply  with  the  rules  were  to  be  employed 
no  longer. 14 

The  year  1784  marked  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
American  Methodism  aside  from  the  slavery  question. 
The  growth  of  the  societies,  together  with  the  newly 
attained  political  separation  of  the  colonies  from  Great 
Britain,  15  necessitated  a  more  formal  and  complete 
church  organization.  To  this  end  Mr.  Wesley  ordained 
Dr.  Coke  as  superintendent  or  bishop  and  sent  him 
with  two  companions  to  the  United  States. 16  At  the 


12  “Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences,”  I.  12. 

13  “Ibid.,”  I.  18. 

14  “Ibid.,”  I.  20,  21. 

15  See  Wesley’s  letter,  “Ibid.,”  I.  21-22. 

16  Drew,  “Coke,”  73.  Wesley’s  “Journal,”  VII.  15-16.  (All 
references  to  Wesley’s  “Journal  ”  are  to  the  Standard  Edition).  Ty- 
erman,  “J.  Wesley,”  III.  426-30. 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


13 


famous  Christmas  conference  in  Baltimore  (1784)  Am¬ 
erican  Methodism  began  its  independent  existence. 17 

With  the  constitutional  system  then  set  up  we  are 
not  here  concerned,  but  we  are  interested  in  the  stand 
the  conference  took  on  slavery.  A  new  requirement 
for  church  membership  was  written  into  the  first  ‘  ‘  Dis¬ 
cipline7’  or  authoritative  rule  book  of  American  Method¬ 
ism.  Every  slaveholding  member  must  within  a  year 
execute  a  legal  instrument  agreeing  to  free  all  his 
slaves  at  a  time  depending  upon  their  age  when  the 
document  was  drawn  up.  Pastors  must  keep  a  record 
of  these  transactions  in  their  respective  circuits,  and 
members  must  comply  with  the  new  condition  within 
a  year  or  withdraw  from  the  church.  Applicants 
must  accept  it  before  being  admitted  to  membership. 
An  exception,  which  be  it  said  limited  somewhat  the 
sweeping  character  of  this  legislation,  was  made  for 
those  residing  in  states  where  manumission  was  pro¬ 
hibited  by  law.  The  declaration  was  still  further  toned 
down  by  the  proviso  allowing  the  Virginia  brethren, 
on  account  of  their  peculiar  circumstances,  two  years 
in  which  to  accept  or  reject  it. 18 

This  legislation  sets  the  high  water  mark  of  Metho¬ 
dist  anti-slavery  opposition  in  the  early  days.  The 
trend  of  the  church  for  a  long  time  thereafter  was 


17  Of  course  American  Methodists  always  loyally  acknowledged 
the  leadership  of  John  Wesley. 

At  this  Christmas  conference,  Coke  and  Asbury  were  unanimously 
elected  to  the  superintendency  (episcopate)  and  Asbury  was  ordained. 
Asbury,  “Journal,”  I.  486. 

18  “Discipline”  of  1785,  15-17. 

These  old  “Disciplines”  are  now  rare.  Very  few  full  sets  are  in 
existence.  The  set  in  the  library  of  the  New  England  Methodist 
Historical  Society  in  Boston,  counting  two  reprints,  and  the  original 
of  1785  which  belongs  to  Dr.  Nutter,  the  librarian,  is  complete. 

The  set  at  Drew  Theological  Seminary  Library,  Madison,  N.  J., 
is  nearly  complete. 


14  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


irregularly,  but  surely,  away  from  this  high  standard. 
Although  spreading  more  rapidly  in  the  North  than  in 
the  South  in  subsequent  years,  Methodism  was  stronger 
at  the  South  at  the  time  this  radical  stand  on  slavery 
was  taken. 19  This  fact  made  it  especially  difficult  for 
the  church  to  stand  boldly  erect  on  its  vigorously  ex¬ 
pressed  anti-slavery  platform.  Compromise  seemed 
needful  if  peace  was  to  be  maintained  and  the  grand 
purpose  achieved  for  which  the  church  existed,  i.  e., 
the  spreading  of  scriptural  holiness  over  these  lands. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  rigid  anti-slavery  views 
of  Wesley,  Coke  and  Asbury  were  thrust,  in  a  sense, 
upon  an  unwilling  or  indifferent  conference.  It  is 
hinted  that  Wesley’s  plans  were  unfolded  to  the 
conference,  20  and  that  the  decisions  were  arrived  at 
hurriedly.  21  It  is  certain  that  the  proceedings  evoked 
energetic  opposition  among  the  laity.  Both  Coke  and 
Asbury  encountered  bitter  hostility  in  many  localities. 
While  preaching  in  a  barn  in  Virginia  in  April,  1785, 
Dr.  Coke  made  his  audience  so  angry  by  his  anti-slavery 
utterances  that  several  individuals  withdrew  determin¬ 
ed  to  do  the  preacher  bodily  harm.  A  fashionably  dress¬ 
ed  lady  urged  them  on  by  offering  a  large  reward  if 
they  would  treat  the  offending  minister  to  a  hundred 
lashes.  22  Bishop  Asbury  referring  to  the  same  inci¬ 
dent  remarked  how  agitated  the  people  were  over  the 


19  “Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences,”  I.  20. 

In  1784  about  80  per  cent  of  the  Methodists  lived  in  Maryland, 
Delaware,  or  the  states  further  south. 

It  will  be  noted  that  this  anti-slavery  legislation  appeared  near 
the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  famous  Northwest  Ordinance  of  1787, 
and  also  while  many  states  were  freeing  or  providing  for  the  ultimate 
freeing  of  their  slaves. 

20  Drew,  “Coke,”  102. 

21  Asbury,  “Journal,”  I.  487.  But  it  is  also  said  that  the  gen¬ 
eral  principles  involved  in  the  plans  thus  unfolded  were  approved 
unanimously. 

22  Drew,  “Coke,”  138. 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


15 


new  rules  on  slavery.  23  Coke  met  with  much  persecu¬ 
tion.  Members  withdrew  from  the  church,  houses 
where  he  had  been  wont  to  find  friendly  entertainment 
were  closed  to  him,  the  assassin’s  bullet  was  levelled 
at  him,  he  was  indicted  by  a  grand  jury  and  chased  by 
a  mob.  24 

This  violence  had  the  desired  effect,  25  for  at  a 
conference  held  early  in  June,  1785,  less  than  six 
months  after  they  were  enacted,  the  objectionable  rules 
were  suspended.  26  This  proved  to  mean  indefinite 
postponment,  but  the  friends  of  the  negro  covered  their 
retreat  by  a  reiteration  of  their  abhorrence  of  slavery 
and  their  determination  to  labor  for  its  destruction  by 
all  wise  and  prudent  means.  27  It  was  impossible,  how¬ 
ever,  to  hide  the  fact  that  they  had  suffered  a  severe 
defeat.  28 


23  Asbury,  “Journal,”  I.  495,  (April  30,  1785). 

He  wrote,  “I  found  the  minds  of  the  people  greatly  agitated  with 

our  rules  against  slavery.  .  .  .  Colonel - and  Dr.  Coke  disputed 

on  the  subject,  and  the  Colonel  used  some  threats  :  Next  day  brother 
O’Kelly  let  fly  at  them,  and  they  were  angry  enough  ;  we,  however, 
came  off  with  whole  bones,  and  our  business  in  conference  was  fin¬ 
ished  in  peace.” 

24  Drew,  “Coke,”  142,  182-3. 

25  “Ibid.,”  144. 

26  “Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences,”  I.  24. 

27  “Ibid.” 

28  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  English 
associates  and  successors  did  not  always  conduct  themselves  as  belli¬ 
gerently  in  the  presence  of  the  “evil”  as  their  professions  might  lead 
one  to  expect. 

In  1758  Mr.  Wesley  baptized  a  Mr.  Gilbert  and  two  of  his  slaves 
in  England.  He  did  not  require  that  the  blacks  be  freed,  nor  did  he 
prohibit  his  followers  in  the  West  Indies  or  on  the  continent  from 
holding  slaves.  For  the  baptism  see  Journal,  IV.  247-8  (Jan.  17,  ’58) 
and  292  (Nov.  29,  ’58). 

In  1817  English  missionaries  sent  to  the  West  Indies  were  warned 
that  their  sole  business  was  to  promote  the  religious  and  moral  im¬ 
provement  of  the  blacks  without  interfering  publicly  or  privately  with 
their  civil  status.  Scarritt,  “Position  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  on  the  subject  of  Slavery,”  19-20. 


16  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

For  over  ten  years  little  was  done  in  the  conferences 
about  slavery.  The  suspension  of  the  rules  of  1784 
practically  struck  from  the  Discipline  all  reference  to 
the  subject.  29  Interest  in  the  colored  man  took  the 
form  of  zealous  work  for  his  spiritual  salvation  rather 
than  for  his  bodily  emancipation.  30  At  the  General 
Conference  of  1796  31  there  appeared  a  temporary  re¬ 
vival  of  the  old  anti-slavery  spirit.  Supplemented  by 
some  acts  of  the  succeeding  Conference  32  it  was  de¬ 
clared  that  the  church  was  more  than  ever  convinced 
of  the  great  evil  of  slavery,  that  all  slaveholders  obtain¬ 
ing  official  position  in  the  church  must  engage  to 
emancipate  their  slaves,  all  slaveholders  seeking  church 
membership  must  be  spoken  to  by  the  ministers  about 
slavery,  and  slave  sellers  must  be  expelled.  Slave  buy¬ 
ing  was  to  be  permitted  solely  on  condition  that  slave 
and  offspring  be  kept  in  bondage  for  a  limited  time 
only,  traveling  preachers  forfeited  their  positions  at 
once  if  they  refused  to  free  their  slaves  in  states  where 
it  was  legal  to  do  so,  and  annual  conferences  were 
directed  to  petition  their  state  legislatures  to  legalize 
gradual  emancipation  where  it  was  not  already  legal.  33 

While  inferior  in  rigor  to  those  of  1784,  these  rules 
betoken  a  new  zeal  after  a  decade  of  coolness.  This 
revival  may  not  be  unrelated  to  the  activity  of  the  secu¬ 
lar  abolition  societies  which  at  this  time  (1794)  began 


29  In  the  “Disciplines”  of  1786,  1787,  and  1788  there  is  no  men¬ 
tion  of  slavery  at  all.  It  is  also  of  interest  that  the  rule  against  the 
use  of  liquor  was  dropped  out  in  1786. 

30  It  was  about  this  time  that  the  first  independent  negro 
churches  arose.  See  Turner,  “Negro  in  Pennsylvania,”  134-135. 

31  By  1796  the  General  Conference  had  been  evolved,  beginning 
with  the  organic  legislation  of  1784,  and  had  been  given  the  chief 
place  in  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  church. 

32  This  Conference  (1800)  rejected  a  proposal  to  exclude  all 
slaveholders  from  the  church  and  thus  restore  the  high  standard  of 
1784.  “Journals  of  the  General  Conference,”  I.  41. 

33  “Journals  of  the  General  Conference,”  I.  22,  23,  40,  41,  44. 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


17 


to  unite  in  an  annual  convention  at  Philadelphia.  A 
good  deal  of  anti-slavery  enthusiasm  was  thus  de¬ 
veloped,  and  a  campaign  was  planned  which  included 
memorializing  the  state  legislatures  and  Congress  on 
the  subject.  For  a  dozen  years  the  work  of  this  con¬ 
vention  was  kept  up,  when  a  decided  slackening  of 
interest  could  again  be  observed.  34 

It  is  naturally  difficult  to  determine  just  how  effec¬ 
tively  the  new  church  rules  were  enforced.  We  get 
glimpses  of  their  operation  in  one  locality,  at  least,  by 
means  of  some  extracts  from  “an  old  smoky  MS. 
‘Journal  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  of  Dor¬ 
chester  Circuit,  Md.  ’  ’  ’  These  minutes  cover  the  period 
1804-1829  and  show  how  the  rules  of  1796  were  en¬ 
forced  among  the  local  Methodists.  From  the  extracts 
it  appears  that  at  the  April  meeting  in  1805,  provision 
was  made  for  the  freeing  of  five  slaves ;  at  the  March 
meeting  1806,  ten  were  freed ;  in  September,  one ;  Feb¬ 
ruary  1807,  six ;  and  so  on.  At  one  meeting  a  member 
was  expelled  for  having  sold  a  negro  for  lifelong  ser¬ 
vice  although  he  pleaded  ignorance  of  the  rules.  The 
last  transaction  of  this  nature  occurred  February  23, 
1816,  and  while  the  book  contains  the  minutes  for 
thirteen  years  more,  no  emancipations  are  recorded.  35 


34  Locke,  “Anti-Slavery  in  America,”  101.  See  also  the  “Minutes 
of  the  Proceedings”  of  these  conventions,  passim. 

35  In  Mattison,  “Impending  Crisis  of  1860,”  25-28.  The  follow¬ 
ing  will  indicate  more  exactly  the  nature  of  these  “Minutes”  and  the 
method  of  doing  business  in  the  conference :  “April  6,  1805, — The  case 
of  Joseph  Meekins,  who  has  purchased  a  negro  woman  and  child, 
was  considered.  Resolved,  That  the  said  negro  woman  shall  serve 
eight  years,  and  the  said  boy  named  Ben  shall  serve  until  he  is  twenty- 
six  years  old.  Expelled  for  non-compliance.” 

“October  1,  1808,  Roger  Cooper’s  case,  who  had  purchased  a 
negro  man,  aged  37  years,  for  whom  he  gave  $250,  being  submitted. 
Resolved,  That  the  said  negro  may  be  held  to  serve  for  seven  years 
from  next  Christmas.” 

See  also  the  vigorous  attempts  to  enforce  the  anti-slavery  legisla¬ 
tion  indicated  by  the  action  of  the  Philadelphia  conference  (1810  and 
1814),  and  quoted  in  the  same  old  “Journal.”  “Ibid.,”  31-32. 


18  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

The  revival  of  1796  was  relatively  short  lived. 
The  implication  of  the  Dorchester  minutes,  that  the 
rules  ceased  to  be  enforced  and  that  the  anti-slaverv 

4/ 

spirit  soon  waned  again,  is  borne  out  by  the  acts  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1804  and  its  immediate  suc¬ 
cessors.  In  that  year  the  enactments  of  1796  and  1800 
were  materially  weakened.  The  plan  of  memorializ¬ 
ing  state  legislatures  was  dropped,  and  slave  selling 
under  certain  conditions  was  legalized.  Moreover 
three  southern  states,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia  were  exempted  altogether  from  these  at¬ 
tenuated  rules,  and  as  if  to  show  how  strongly  the 
wind  was  blowing  from  the  South,  the  preachers  were 
instructed  to  admonish  the  slaves  to  render  due  respect 
1)o  the  commands  of  their  masters.  36  What  a  change 
in  tone  since  1784!  The  practical  requirements  of 
ecclesiastical  statesmanship  wrere  making  inadvisable 
a  rigid  stand  against  the  powerful  interests  of  one  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  church.  Outside  the  church,  also,  anti¬ 
slavery  zeal  was  on  the  wane.  In  1803  South  Caro¬ 
lina  had  reopened  her  ports  to  the  foreign  slave  trade,37 
while  in  1806  the  Philadelphia  anti-slavery  conven¬ 
tion,  already  referred  to,  began  to  meet  triennially 
instead  of  annually.  38 

The  spirit  of  compromise  was  further  manifested 
in  the  General  Conference  of  1808.  It  eliminated  from 
the  Discipline  every  syllable  on  slaveholding  among 
private  members.  The  internal  slave-trade  was  rele- 


36  “Journals  of  the  Gen.  Conf.,”  I.  22-23,  62-63. 

Compare  pages  22-23  with  pages  62-63. 

The  subject  of  slavery  aroused  great  interest  in  this  Conference 
and  was  referred  to  a  large  and  representative  committee  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  satisfying  both  sections.  “Journals,”  I.  60,  61. 

37  DuBois,  “Suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade,”  86. 

38  Locke,  “Anti-Slavery  in  America,”  101,  note  7. 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


19 


gated  to  the  annual  conferences  for  control  and  a 
special,  expurgated  edition  'of  the  Discipline  was  or¬ 
dered  printed  for  the  sensitive  South  Carolinians. 39 

Feeling  ran  high  in  that  state  on  account  of  the  anti¬ 
slavery  position  of  the  church.  The  strong  anti-slavery 
“  Address  of  the  Conference  of  1800/’  written  by  the 
bishops  and  widely  circulated  through  the  denomina¬ 
tion  gave  great  offence  there.  It  was  denounced  as  a 
disloyal  and  incendiary  document.  Bishop  Asbury  met 
with  this  dissatisfaction  frequently,  and  commented  on 
it  in  his  “Journal.”  He  said  the  address  certainly  armed 
and  alarmed  the  South  Carolinians.  40  He  met  a  cer¬ 
tain  Solomon  Reeves  who  objected  to  the  views  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  address,  and  who  used  with  Asbury  the 
familiar  arguments  about  slavery  not  being  repugnant 
to  the  Gospel.  The  bishop  observed  cautiously  that 
this  man  appeared  to  have  no  more  grace  than  was 
necessary,  and  perhaps  no  more  of  Solomon  than  the 
name.  41  A  member  of  the  state  legislature  told  Asbury 
that  the  document  was  much  “reprobated”  in  the  state, 
and  that  it  had  led  to  the  passage  of  a  stringent  law 
forbidding  ministers  to  teach  colored  people  behind 
closed  doors.  The  law  permitted  the  authorities  to  break 
fopen  the  door  and  flog  the  offending  blacks.  42  The  two 


39  “Journals,”  I.  93. 

According  to  Dr.  Nutter  of  the  New  England  Methodist  Historical 
Society  Library  no  copy  of  that  expurgated  Discipline  has  ever  been 
found. 

Dr.  Tigert  denounced  this  exception  as  the  entering  wedge  which 
finally  split  the  church.  “Constitutional  Hist.,”  323. 

During  the  year  1808  also,  there  culminated  a  series  of  minor 
changes  in  the  General  Rule  on  slavery  which  while  doubtless  mostly 
accidental  were  made  much  of  later  by  the  Methodist  abolitionists. 
Matlack,  “American  Slavery  and  Methodism,”  32-36. 

40  Asbury,  “Journal,”  III.  7  (Jan.  30,  1801). 

41  “Ibid.,”  III.  9-10,  (Feb.  13,  1801). 

42  “Ibid.,”  II.  490  (Dec.  21,  1800)  ;  “Acts  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  South  Carolina,”  II.  351-53. 


20  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

Methodist  preachers  stationed  at  Charleston  had  a  very 
disagreeable  experience  growing  out  of  the  popular 
hostility  to  anti-slavery  utterances.  One  received  a 
few  copies  of  the  address  and  showed  them  to  some 
friends.  The  fact  got  out,  and  the  city  authorities  came 
to  see  him  about  it.  He  then  burned  the  offending 
papers,  but  that  was  not  sufficient  to  allay  suspicion. 
On  the  following  Sunday  a  mob  gathered  and  he  es¬ 
caped  serious  harm  only  with  the  greatest  difficulty. 
Balked  of  its  prey  this  time,  the  mob  came  again  when 
the  other  preacher  was  officiating.  They  dragged  him  to 
a  neighboring  pump  and  soaked  him  with  water.  One 
of  his  church  members,  a  woman,  ran  and  thrust  her 
shawl  into  the  pump  spout,  just  as  a  man  came  along 
armed  with  a  drawn  sword  and  rescued  the  preacher.4” 

Bishop  Asbury  was  much  grieved  at  the  increased 
difficulty  of  access  to  the  negroes.  The  position  of  the 
church  on  slavery  made  the  slaveholders  fear  the 
effects  of  its  teachings  on  the  blacks.  Brooding  over 
this  matter,  and  seeing  the  increased  numbers  the 
church  might  enroll  if  it  had  freer  access  to  the  slaves, 
the  bishop  confided  to  his  diary  the  query  whether  it 
would  not  have  been  better  to  work  for  the  amelior¬ 
ation  of  the  condition  of  the  slave  rather  than  for  his 
emancipation.  He  doubted  if  society  was  ready  for 
the  latter.  It  certainly  was  ready  for  the  former.  44 
With  misgivings  like  these  finding  lodgment  in  the 
mind  of  the  staunch  old  anti-slavery  bishop,  we  need 
not  wonder  so  much  at  the  general  decline  of  radical 
anti-slavery  feeling. 

In  1808  also  there  came  that  change  in  Methodist 
polity  by  which  the  General  Conference  ceased  to  be  a 


43  “Meth.  Mag.  and  Quarterly  Rev.,”  Jan.  1830,  21. 

44  Asbury,  “Journal,”  III.  298,  (Feb.  1,  1809). 


EARLY  METHODISM  AND  SLAVERY 


21 


mass  meeting  of  all  the  eligible  preachers  and  became 
a  representative  body.  45  The  first  session  under  the 
new  constitution  (1812),  while  adding  a  rule  closing 
the  local  eldership  to  slaveholders  who  could  legally 
free  their  slaves  and  would  not,  made  no  substantial 
change  in  the  antislavery  regulations  of  the  church.  46 

Four  years  later,  the  committee  on  slavery  while 
deploring  the  tendency  in  the  South  to  make  emanci¬ 
pation  legally  impossible,  and  the  easy  acquiescence  of 
the  church  membership  in  such  unfriendly  legislation, 
came  to  the  pessimistic  conclusion  that  the  Conference 
could  do  nothing  to  help  matters.  Impressed  by  the 
anarchy  consequent  to  leaving  the  control  over  slave¬ 
holding  so  largely  with  the  annual  conferences,  the 
committee  did  however  actually  get  enacted  a  pro¬ 
vision  that  in  the  future  no  slaveholder  should  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  church  membership  in  states  where  emanci¬ 
pation  was  legal.  47  In  1820  the  right  of  the  annual 
conferences  to  make  their  own  rules  on  buying  and  sell¬ 
ing  slaves  was  withdrawn  altogether,  48  and  in  1824  the 
slavery  section  was  amended  for  the  last  time  until 
1860.  To  the  two  clauses  still  left  in  the  old  rules, 
there  was  added  a  new  one  making  it  the  duty  of 
the  preachers  to  impress  upon  church  members  the 
necessity  of  teaching  their  slaves  to  read  the  Bible  and 
of  allowing  them  to  attend  public  worship.  49  Appar- 


45  “Journals,”  I.  89.  Tigert,  “Constitutional  Hist.,”  ch,  XVIII. 
See  also  Appendix  I.  of  the  present  work. 


46 

“Journals,’ 

”  I.  110 

47 

“Ibid.,”  I. 

167-70. 

48 

“Ibid.,”  I. 

205. 

49 

“Ibid.,”  I. 

294. 

Two  minor  sections  were  also  added  now,  regulating  the  church 
administration  relative  to  slavery.  (1)  The  colored  preachers  and 
officials  were  to  have  full  privileges  in  all  places  where  local  cus¬ 
tom  would  sanction  it ;  and  (2)  annual  conferences  might  employ 
colored  preachers  to  travel,  when  necessary. 


22  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

ently  the  church  was  now  able  to  look  without  serious 
protest  on  the  slavery — that  “  execrable  sum  of  all 
villanies,”  50  in  its  midst.  By  1828  so  keen  had  opposi¬ 
tion  to  any  Conference  action  on  slavery  become  that 
even  a  simple  resolution  providing  a  method  of  deal¬ 
ing  with  inhuman,  slaveholding  members  was  tabled.  51 

In  1832  there  was  no  action  on  slavery.  In  1836 
the  session  of  the  General  Conference  fully  reflected 
the  new  abolitionist  controversy,  with  which  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  deal  in  the  next  chapter.  Perhaps  we 
may  trespass  a  little  on  the  field  of  that  chapter  to 
record  a  last  downward  step  in  the  anti-slavery  feeling 
of  official  Methodism.  At  the  General  Conference  of 
1840  there  was  adopted,  somewhat  hurriedly  indeed, 
a  declaration  that  the  simple  holding  of  slaves  should 
hereafter  constitute  no  bar  to  the  various  official  posi¬ 
tions  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  52  Doubtless 
few  saw  the  full  bearing  of  this  sweeping  resolution ;  or 
realized  that  it  might  open  the  way  even  for  a  slave¬ 
holding  bishop.  But  with  this  act  on  the  records,  it 
would  seem  that  not  only  private  members  but  min¬ 
isters  of  all  ranks  might  hold  slaves,  and  the  contrast 
with  the  early  official  testimony  of  this  great  church  is 
most  striking. 


50  Wesley,  “Journal,”  V.  445-46.  (Feb.  12,  1772). 

51  “Journals,”  I.  337,  357. 

52  “Journals,”  II.  167-71. 


Chapter  II 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


The  tasks  of  the  present  chapter  are  easily  defined. 
We  must  give  our  attention  to  the  revival  of  the  old 
anti-slavery  sentiments  in  the  church  in  the  form  of 
radical  abolitionism ;  the  collision  of  this  new  movement 
with  the  official  church ;  and  the  resulting  secession 
of  thousands  of  the  abolitionist  members  in  the  north 
and  northeast. 

By  1830  the  old  anti-slavery  spirit  seemed  to  have 
spent  its  force.  The  voice  of  the  churches  was  no 
longer  heard  in  protest,  the  old  anti-slavery  societies 
were  languishing,  there  was  hardly  an  abolitionist  mili¬ 
tant  in  the  field,  the  Colonization  Society  absorbed 
most  of  the  public  interest  in  the  subject,  and  it 
apparently  was  doing  but  little  for  the  slave. 1  This 
condition  was  not  destined  to  continue.  Even  then 
forces  were  at  work  that  would  aid  in  producing  a  re¬ 
revival  among  the  friends  of  the  oppressed.  A  world¬ 
wide  movement  was  under  way,  that  would  make 
smooth  the  path  of  this  revival.  It  was  an  age  of  isms. 
It  was  a  hysterical  age  the  world  was  entering.  It  was 
an  age  of  humanitarian  impulses,  of  a  new  social  spirit. 
Prison  reform,  reform  in  the  treatment  of  the  insane 
and  the  poor  and  the  defective  showed  a  growing  sense 
of  social  responsibility.  Mesmerism,  Fourierism,  ad- 
ventism,  spiritism,  Mormonism  and  other  isms  were 


1  Hart,  “Slavery  and  Abolition,”  165-66. 


24  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

making,  or  were  about  to  make,  a  strong  emotional 
appeal.  How  natural  to  find  abolitionism  among  these 
movements.  The  world  was  growing  tired  of  slavery. 
Serfdom  was  disappearing  in  Central  Europe,  a  wave 
of  emancipation  was  passing  over  South  America,  and 
the  agitation  in  England  for  the  freedom  of  the  West 
Indian  negroes  was  at  its  height.  Finally  deepseated 
economic  changes  were  working  against  slavery,  as  for 
example  the  sudden  development  of  new  economic 
opportunities  due  to  the  industrial  revolution,  which 
was  calling  for  a  kind  of  labor  that  slavery  could  not 
furnish.  This  change  emphasized  the  differences  be¬ 
tween  the  North  and  the  South  and  urged  on  the  sec- 
tionalization  of  the  country. 

Whatever  the  causes  the  anti-slavery  spirit 
did  revive.  Benjamin  Lundy  the  first  journalist  of 
the  new  abolitionism  touched  the  stern  soul  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison  who  became  the  great  apostle  of  the 
radicals.  Garrison  began  publishing  the  ‘ ‘Liberator,” 
January  1,  1831.  Next  year  he  was  instrumental  in 
organizing  the  New  England  Anti-slavery  Society.2  In 
December  1833,  the  American  Anti-slavery  Society  was 
born  in  Philadelphia.  3  It  issued  a  platform  declaring 
slavery  contrary  to  justice,  to  the  ideals  of  our  republi¬ 
can  government,  and  the  Christian  religion.  It  said  an 
organization  ought  to  be  formed  appealing  to  the  hearts 
and  consciences  of  the  people  and  aiming  to  reawaken 
sentiment  against  the  intolerable  evil. 4  The  aims, 
progress  and  intensity  of  this  movement  are  known  to 
every  school  boy. 


2  Garrisons’  “Garrison,”  I.  277-83. 

3  “Ibid.,”  I.  380-419. 

4  3  “Liberator,”  198.  “Constitution  of  the  Am.  Anti-Slavery 
Society,”  preamble,  and  p.  6. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


25 


Such  a  revival  of  opposition  could  not  arise  with¬ 
out  finding  quick  response  in  a  body  with  the  anti¬ 
slavery  traditions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
That  great  institution  was  soon  quivering  with  the  com¬ 
mon  excitement.  Methodist  anti-slavery  societies 
sprang  up,  and  powerful  champions  of  the  cause,  both 
lay  and  clerical,  came  to  the  front.  Among  those  so 
aroused  few  had  a  more  interesting  career,  or  fought 
more  valiantly  than  did  Orange  Scott.  Born  of  poor 
parents, 5  he  got  little  formal  education,  having  re¬ 
ceived  but  thirteen  months  schooling  by  the  end  of  his 
twenty-first  year.  He  interested  himself  in  religious 
subjects  and  soon  combined  preaching  for  the  Metho¬ 
dists,  and  working  on  a  farm.  In  due  time  he  became  a 
regular  traveling  minister  widely  known  as  a  successful 
and  influential  man.  6 

When  the  abolition  agitation  began  he  was  drawn 
into  it.  He  had  known  very  little  about  slavery, 
scarcely  realizing  that  it  existed  either  in  church  or 
state.  In  the  summer  of  1833  he  chanced  to  visit  a 
brother  preacher  who  had  some  knowledge  of  the  new 
movement,  and  for  the  first  time  Scott  heard  of  the 
“Liberator”  and  the  Abolition  Society.  He  at  once 
purchased  literature  on  the  subject  and  began  an  in¬ 
vestigation  on  his  own  account.  For  a  year  he  said 
little,  then  declared  his  conversion  to  the  cause  of  free¬ 
dom,  remained  a  recognized  leader  of  Methodist  aboli¬ 
tionism,  until  he  withdrew  to  aid  in  forming  the  anti¬ 
slavery  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  in  1842-43.  7 


5  He  was  born  in  Vermont,  Feb.  13,  1800. 

6  “Autobiography  of  Orange  Scott,”  chs.  I.-III.  (dictated  a  few 
days  before  his  death),  in  Matlack’s  “Life  of  O.  Scott.”  The  two 
parts  are  paged  consecutively. 

7  “Autobiog.  of  O.  Scott,”  chs.  IV.-V. 


26  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

Convinced  of  the  righteousness  of  the  new  move¬ 
ment,  Scott  began  to  work  for  it  energetically.  At 
the  regular  meeting  of  the  New  England  annual  con¬ 
ference  in  1834,  he  succeeded  in  getting  tabled  a  reso¬ 
lution  approving  the  old  Colonization  Society  which  on 
account  of  its  respectable  and  safe  conservatism  was 
always  an  object  of  attack  by  the  radicals.  “Zion’s 
Herald,”  the  official  organ  of  New  England  Methodism, 
was  opened  to  discussions  of  slavery,  8  and  Scott  was 
chosen  to  champion  the  radical  program.  He  was  a 
persistent  propagandist.  He  subscribed  for  a  hundred 
copies  of  the  “Liberator”  and  had  them  sent  to  the 
members  of  the  New  England  conference  with  the  re¬ 
sult  that  most  of  the  preachers  were  made  over  into 
aggressive  abolitionists. 9  In  1835,  this  conference 
elected  a  large  majority  of  its  delegates  to  the  coming 
General  Conference,  from  the  ranks  of  the  radicals. 10 

Already  the  first  Methodist  anti-slavery  society 
had  been  formed,  at  a  meeting  in  New  York  City  in 
1834.  LaRoy  Sunderland,  another  active  champion  of 
the  cause,  presided.  Bishop  Hedding  of  the  Methodist 
Church  was  chosen  president  of  the  new  society  but 
promptly  declined  the  honor. 11  In  June,  1835,  the 
New  England  conference  at  its  Lynn  meeting  formed 


8  “Zion’s  Herald,”  (referred  to  hereafter  as  “Z.  H.”),  Jan.  7, 
1835.  O.  Scott’s  articles  began  in  the  same  issue  and  for  the  next  six 
months  the  subject  was  much  discussed,  Scott  and  Sunderland  (see 
below)  leading  on  one  side  and  W.  Fisk  and  Dr.  Whedon  on  the  other. 

9  This  was  in  1834  or  1835  and  before  Garrison  had  won  the 
opposition  of  the  churches  as  he  had  to  so  great  an  extent  by  1840. 
Garrisons’  “Garrison,”  II.  289. 

10  Scott,  “Autobiography,”  34-35  ;  “Journal  of  the  New  England 
Conference,”  (Manuscript)  June  10,  11,  1835.  (Referred  to  as  MS. 
“Journal  New  Eng.  Conf.”) 

11  The  New  Eng.  Meth.  Anti-slavery  Soc.  invited  Geo.  Thomp¬ 
son,  the  English  agitator,  to  address  it.  Matlack,  “Anti-slav.  Struggle 
and  Triumph  in  the  M.  E.  Church,”  85. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


27 


an  anti-slavery  society, 12  and  the  New  Hampshire  con¬ 
ference  followed  suit. 13  At  this  time  a  prominent 
Methodist  church  in  Boston  opened  its  pulpit  to  aboli¬ 
tionist  speakers — a  move  which  called  forth  warm 
praise  14  from  Garrison. 

In  December  (1834)  some  members  of  the  New 
England  and  New  Hampshire  conferences  united  in  a 
strong  “Appeal”  to  their  fellow  clergy  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  They  emphasized  those  well  known  argu¬ 
ments  of  the  party  which  it  was  thought  would  appeal 
to  the  Methodists.  The  writers  dwelt  especially  on  two 
aspects  of  the  subject :  Is  slaveholding  a  sin  against  God 
in  all  circumstances,  and  must  emancipation  be  im¬ 
mediate  and  absolute?  They  answered  both  questions 
in  the  affirmative, 15  and  worked  out  most  elaborately 
arguments  from  scripture,  from  the  Discipline  of  the 


12  “Z.  H.,”  June  10,  1835. 

13  “Ibid.,”  Aug.  12,  19,  1835. 

14  Garrison's  letter  of  praise  is  in  Haven’s  “National  Sermons,-’ 
p.  VII.  of  the  Introduction.  Here  is  the  extract :  “In  these  days  of 
slavish  servility  and  malignant  prejudices,  we  are  presented,  occas¬ 
ionally,  with  some  beautiful  specimens  of  Christian  obedience  and 
courage.  One  of  these  is  seen  in  the  opening  of  the  North  Bennett 
Street  Methodist  Meeting-House  in  Boston,  to  the  advocates  of  the 
honor  of  God,  the  salvation  of  our  country,  and  the  freedom  of  en¬ 
slaved  millions  in  our  midst.” 

15  “An  Appeal  on  the  Subject  of  Slavery  addressed  to  the  Mem¬ 
bers  of  the  New  England  and  New  Hampshire  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. ...” 

In  “Z.  H.”  this  is  called  “Appeal  to  the  Members  of  the  New  Eng¬ 
land  and  New  Hampshire  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.” 

It  appears  in  an  undated  Extra  of  the  “Herald”  issued  in  June, 
1835,  as  well  as  in  pamphlet  form. 

The  question  at  issue  they  said  was,  “Is  it  a  sin  against  God  to 
hold  property  in  the  human  species  ?’1’  The  Bible,  they  claimed,  condemns 
slavery  in  the  same  way  that  it  condemns  many  other  things  which 
Christians  admit  to  be  sins.  A  polygamist  “might  explain  with  pre¬ 
cisely  as  much  consistency — ‘there  is  not  one  command  in  the  Bible 
against  polygamy’  as  the  Christian  enslaver  does — ‘There  is  nothing 
in  the  Bible  against  Slavery.’  ”  p.  7. 


28  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

church,  from  the  testimony  of  the  Methodist  fathers 
and  from  the  utterances  of  contemporary  English 
Methodists.  They  pointed  out  significantly  that  some 
of  the  regulations  of  the  General  Conference  were 
opposed  in  spirit  to  the  general  rule  of  the  Discipline, 
on  slavery.  These  regulations,  they  asserted,  seemed 
to  imply  that  what  was  an  evil  in  one  state  might  not 
be  an  evil  in  another. 16  These  thrusts  indicate  some 
obvious  inconsistencies  inherent  in  the  attempt  of  the 
church  to  straddle  the  issue.  The  “Appeal”  concludes 
with  a  suggestion  that  appropriate  petitions  be  sent  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1836. 17  The  “Appeal” 
called  forth  a  “Counter  Appeal”  written  by  the  able 
Dr.  Whedon,  a  prominent  'Methodist  preacher  and 
teacher.  He  adopted  the  moderate  views  then  popular 
among  men  of  his  class.  Attacking  the  two  chief  prop¬ 
ositions  of  the  “Appeal,”  he  advocated  the  practical 
view  that  slavery  was  not  in  every  instance  a  sin,  since 
it  might  do  all  concerned  a  great  deal  more  harm  to 
free  the  slaves  at  once,  than  to  retain  them  in  bondage. 
The  very  principle  of  the  golden  rule  would  prevent 
the  freeing  of  a  helpless  old  slave,  and  thus  turning 
him  out  to  starve.  He  met  the  assertion  that  no  slave¬ 
holder  could  be  a  real  Christian  and  therefore  should  be 
deprived  of  membership  in  the  Christian  church,  by  a 
simple  reference  to  Bible  precedents.  The  church  at 
Colosse,  under  the  apostolic  eye  permitted  the  relation 


16  The  general  rule  of  the  Discipline  referred  to  is  :  “The  buy¬ 
ing  and  selling  of  men,  women,  and  children,  with  an  intention  to  en¬ 
slave  them.”  “Discipline”  of  1832,  78.  Suppose,  they  said,  in¬ 
stead  of  relating  to  slavery  the  exception  (permitting  slave-holding 
in  states  where  slaves  could  not  legally  be  emancipated)  should 
apply  to  drunkenness  and  read  as  follows :  “When  any  travelling 
preacher  becomes  a  drunkard,  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his 
ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  can  show  that  the  laws 
of  the  state  in  which  he  lives.  ...”  etc. 

17  “An  Appeal  on  the  Subject  of  Slavery,”  24. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


29 


of  master  and  slave.  If  all  cases  of  slaveholding  repre¬ 
sented  sin  on  the  part  of  the  owner,  why  should  the 
early  church  have  permitted  it  even  for  a  moment  ? 18 
The  authors  of  the  “Appeal”  replied  with  a  “Defence” 
of  their  position. 19 

The  “Counter  Appeal”  is  indicative  of  the  opposi¬ 
tion  which  the  violent  agitation  of  the  radicals  was 
arousing  in  the  church.  Such  opposition  was  inevit¬ 
able.  Note  the  situation.  Here  in  one  corner  of  the 
church  are  groups  of  ministers  and  members  issuing 
stirring  pleas,  organizing  anti-slavery  societies  hearing 
the  name  of  the  church,  preaching,  lecturing,  writing, 
and  urging  that  the  issue  be  carried  to  the  larger  arena 
of  the  General  Conference.  Nor  is  all  this  done  in  the 
spirit  of  brotherly  love,  charity  and  calm  reason.  On 
the  other  hand  stands  the  great  far-flung  Methodist 
Church  with  its  diversified  interests,  including  at  the 
same  time  these  rampant  radicals  with  their  intolerance 
and  immediatism,  and  the  southern  ministry  and  mem¬ 
bership,  willingly  or  unwillingly  entangled  with  the 
slave  system  and  all  it  implied.  Obviously  the  aboli¬ 
tionist  method  of  attack  was  not  calculated  to  make  the 
southern  Methodist  love  his  northern  brother  more 
loyally.  The  sectional  cleavage  was  bound  to  become 
more  marked  if  these  agitations  continued.  The  dec¬ 
ade  of  agitation  prior  to  the  unfortunate  schism  of  1844, 
centered  in  the  clash  between  the  apostles  of  uncom- 


18  “Counter  Appeal  to  the  Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Metho¬ 

dist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  New  England  and  New  Hampshire  con¬ 
ferences.”  “Z.  H.”  Extra,  April  8,  1835.  Both  “Appeal”  and 

“Counter  Appeal”  may  also  be  found  in  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,” 
Documents  16  and  17. 

19  This  “Defence”  is  included  with  the  “Appeal”  in  the  pamphlet 
already  referred  to.  It  also  appears  with  the  “Appeal”  in  the  “Zion’s 
Herald”  Extra  mentioned,  (June  1835). 


30  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

promising  emancipation,  and  those  who  felt  that  the 
extravagances  of  the  agitators  must  be  checked  if 
harmony  was  to  be  maintained  and  ecclesiastical  con¬ 
vulsions  avoided.  Thus  the  issue  was  joined  and  as 
is  inevitable  under  such  circumstances  neither  party 
was  able  to  understand  how  the  other  could  possibly 
be  honest  in  what  it  did  and  thought. 

Naturally  the  bishops  came  early  into  conflict  with 
the  disturbing  elements.  They  tried  to  discourage  dis¬ 
cussion  and  soothe  excited  feelings.  In  1835  two  of 
the  bishops  united  in  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  New  Hamp¬ 
shire  and  New  England  conferences.  They  pointed 
out  the  pernicious  results  already  achieved  and  the  still 
more  disastrous  consequences  that  must  follow  both  in 
church  and  state  if  the  conflict  went  on.  They  recom¬ 
mended  that  members  and  friends  of  the  church  should 
refuse  the  use  of  their  pulpits  to  those  preachers  who 
persisted  in  leaving  their  own  charges  in  order  to 
divide  and  agitate  other  societies.  20 

In  May,  1836,  the  General  Conference  met,  and  in 
its  proceedings  abolitionists  found  ample  ground  for  in¬ 
creased  enmity  toward  official  Methodism.  21  The  two 
northeastern  conferences  most  deeply  tinctured  with 
radicalism  sent  almost  solid  delegations  representing 
these  sentiments.  While  a  very  small  fraction  of  the 
whole  General  Conference,  it  was  an  earnest  and  de¬ 
termined  group  that  Orange  Scott  led,  and  it  did  not 


20  “Christian  Advoc.  and  Journal,”  Sept.  25,  1835.  The  two 
bishops  were  Hedding  and  Emory.  The  letter  is  dated  Lansingburg, 
N.  Y.,  Sept.  10,  1835.  (“The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  will 
he  referred  to  as  “C.  A.  and  J.”) 

21  The  Conference  met  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  May  2,  1836. 
“Journals,”  I.  425.  The  delegates  on  the  way  to  the  Conference  were 
warmly  discussing  the  slavery  question.  “Z.  H.,”  May  11,  1836. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


31 


need  to  be  large  to  provoke  excitement  at  Cincinnati 
especially  in  view  of  the  feeling  outside.  22 

The  usual  greeting  from  the  representative  23  of 
British  Methodism  and  the  official  address  from  that 
body  touched  significantly  on  the  dangerous  issue  and 
brought  it  before  an  assembly  supremely  anxious  to 
avoid  it  altogether. 24  The  Conference  refused  to 
print  the  address  in  the  church  press.  A  report 
adopted  on  recommendation  of  a  special  committee 
pointed  out  to  the  English  brethren  the  complex  way  in 
which  slavery  was  entangled  with  the  government 
under  our  federal  system,  and  intimated  that  if  they 
had  understood  better  the  difficulties  of  the  American 
Methodists  they  would  have  addressed  them  in  a  tone 
of  deeper  sympathy  25 — a  polite  way  of  telling  them  to 
mind  their  own  business. 

A  most  heated  discussion  was  precipitated  by  reso¬ 
lutions  censuring  two  members  of  the  Conference,  both 
New  England  abolitionists,  for  addressing  a  meeting 
of  the  local  Cincinnati  anti-slavery  society. 26  An 


22  As  was  the  ease  throughout  this  whole  controversy,  three 
different  strands  of  opinion  appeared  at  the  Conference  :  radical  aboli¬ 
tionists,  radical  pro-slavery  men,  and  the  moderates.  The  latter  be¬ 
lieved  the  church  could  occupy  an  intermediate  position  and  avoid 
extremes.  Stevens,  “Life  and  Times  of  N.  Bangs,”  315,  316. 

23  In  this  case  the  Rev.  William  Lord.  He  urged  the  abolition 
of  slavery  at  the  earliest  possible  moment  that  it  could  be  done  with 
safety. 

24  The  official  address  pointed  to  the  success  of  emancipation 
in  the  English  Colonies  and  counseled  opposition  to  slavery  on  the 
ground  of  its  repugnance  to  the  law  of  Christ.  “Journals,”  I.  427. 

The  Wesleyan  address  to  the  M.  E.  Church  appears  in  “Minutes 
of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Methodist  Preachers  in  the 
Connexion  established  by  the  late  Rev.  John  Wesley,  A.  M.,”  1835, 
203-206. 

25  “Journals,”  I.  431-32,  434-35,  438.  The  reply  to  the  Wes- 
leyans  may  be  found  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  1,  1836. 

26  Messrs.  Storrs  and  Norris. 


32  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

angry  pro-slavery  man  27  wanted  the  names  of  the  cul¬ 
prits  included  in  the  resolutions  in  order  that  they 
might  “be  brought  forth  in  all  the  length  and  breadth 
of  their  damning  iniquity.”  28  His  attempt  failed. 
Orange  Scott  moved  that  the  Conference  also  express 
its  disapproval  of  slavery  at  the  same  time  that  it  con¬ 
demned  the  acts  of  these  brethren.  Some  one  suggested 
that  the  words  of  the  Discipline  29  be  inserted  instead 
and  Scott  agreed  at  once.  This  shrewd  manoeuver 
put  the  majority  in  a  serious  dilemma.  They  must 
either  appear  to  go  against  the  Discipline  or  they  must 
nullify  the  purpose  of  the  original  resolution  altogether. 
Of  course  the  amendment  failed  and  the  resolutions  30 
of  censure  were  passed  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 
On  the  other  hand  the  anti-slavery  cause  was  being 
thoroughly  advertised,  much  feeling  was  engendered 
and  the  breach  between  the  parties  was  widened.  A 
new  wave  of  bitter  feeling  appeared  when,  later  in  the 


27  Rev.  W.  A.  Smith  of  the  Virginia  annual  conference. 

28  “Debate  on  ‘Modern  Abolitionism’  in  the  General  Conf.  of 
1836,”  6.  This  is  a  reprint  in  pamphlet  form  of  the  debates  and 
proceedings  of  this  Conference  from  J.  G.  Birney’s  notes  reported  to 
the  “Philanthropist.” 

29  “We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of  the 
great  evil  of  slavery....”  “Discipline”  of  1832,  191. 

30  “Debate  on  ‘Modern  Abolitionism.’  ”  5-28.  “Journals,”  I. 

445,  447.  Two  of  the  resolutions  are  as  follows:  “Whereas  great  ex¬ 
citement  has  prevailed  in  this  country  on  the  subject  of  modern  aboli¬ 
tionism,  which  is  reported  to  have  been  increased  in  this  city  recently 
by  the  unjustifiable  conduct  of  two  members  of  the  General  Conference, 
in  lecturing  upon  and  in  favor  of  that  agitating  topic  ;  and  whereas 
such  a  course  on  the  part  of  any  of  its  members  is  calculated  to  bring 
upon  this  body  the  suspicions  and  distrust  of  the  community....” 

“ Resolved ,  1.  That  they  disapprove  in  the  most  unqualified  sense 
the  conduct  of  two  members  of  the  General  Conference,  who  are  re¬ 
ported  to  have  lectured  in  this  city  recently  upon  and  in  favor  of 
modern  abolitionism. 

“ Resolved ,  2.  That  they  are  decidedly  opposed  to  modern  aboli¬ 
tionism  and  wholly  disclaim  any  right,  wish,  or  intention  to  interfere 
in  the  civil  and  political  relation  between  master  and  slave  as  it  exists 
in  the  slave-holding  states  of  this  Union.” 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


33 


session,  Scott’s  pamphlet  31  on  the  resolutions  of  cen¬ 
sure  called  out  more  resolutions,  gave  him  a  chance  to 
debate  the  whole  anti-slavery  issue  and  allowed  the 
majority  to  inflict  another  crushing  defeat  on  the  re¬ 
formers  —  at  least  in  so  far  as  votes  could  defeat 
them.  32 

Everything  seemed  to  go  in  favor  of  the  moderates. 
The  more  extreme  pro-slavery  men  were  unable  to  get 
the  Discipline  modified  as  they  wished.  Unable  to 
gain  a  wider  statutory  toleration  for  their  peculiar  in¬ 
stitution,  these  southerners  gave  a  striking  sign  of  what 
might  be  in  store  for  the  church  if  it  persisted  in  oppos¬ 
ing  them.  W.  A.  Smith  of  Virginia  headed  a  move¬ 
ment  for  a  separation  from  the  North  and  called  a 
caucus  of  the  dissatisfied  ones.  Peter  Cartwright  of 
Illinois,  33  the  famous  backwoods  preacher,  and  a  mild 
anti-slavery  man,  was  invited  to  one  of  these  meetings 
and  reported  that  while  some  hotheads  would  go  with 
Mr.  Smith,  most  of  those  present  would  never  consent 
to  a  division.  34  The  matter  soon  dropped  but  it  showed 
the  increasing  difficulty  of  pleasing  all  the  factions 
within  the  church. 

In  the  pastoral  address  which  the  Conference 
issued  to  the  church  this  perplexing  subject  was  dis¬ 
cussed.  In  it  the  official  body  reiterated  the  hostility 
of  the  church  to  radical  movements  and  most  earnestly 
counseled  the  brethren  “wholly  to  refrain  from  the 


31  “An  Address  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  1836,”  by  Rev  Orange  Scott,  a  member  of  that  body. 

32  “Journals,”  I.  479,  486.  For  the  debate  see  “Debate  on 
‘Modern  Abolitionism,’  ”  65-83.  Some  of  the  more  pungent  personal 
references  appear  on  pages  73,  82-83. 

33  “Journals,”  I.  426. 

34  Peter  Cartwright,  “Autobiography,”  361.  “Z.  H..”  Sept. 

21  and  Oct.  26,  refers  to  this  idea  of  Dr.  Smith’s.  See  also  “Zion’s 
Watchman,”  (“Z.  W.”)  Sept.  7,  Oct.  12,  19,  and  Nov.  2,  1836. 


34  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

agitating  subject”  of  abolitionism.  35  Next  day  this 
much  troubled  Conference  adjourned.  36 

The  conflict  was  now  transferred  to  the  annual  and 
local  conferences.  These  had  already  begun  to  express 
their  views  rather  freely  and  boldly.  In  1835  the  Ohio 
conference  passed  resolutions  expressing  its  confidence 
in  the  existing  anti-slavery  position  of  the  church  and 
regretting  the  proceedings  of  the  abolitionists  with  the 
feeling  these  produced  at  the  South.  37  Resolutions  to 
the  same  effect  were  passed  from  time  to  time  by  the 
Baltimore,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Michi¬ 
gan  and  other  conferences.  38  On  the  other  hand  the 
radicals  who  dominated  the  New  England  conferences 
were  trying  to  get  themselves  on  record  against  slavery 
and  for  abolitionism.  It  should  not  surprise  us  that  the 
bishops  undertook  to  silence  these  disturbers.  Attempts 
to  do  this  led,  in  the  northeast,  to  the  struggle  on  con¬ 
ference  rights,  a  conflict  between  the  bishops  and  the 
preachers  as  to  what  was  and  what  was  not  legitimate 
business  for  the  annual  and  local  conferences.  Differ¬ 
ences  had  arisen  even  before  the  sessions  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  of  1836,  as  for  instance  when  the  pre¬ 
siding  bishop,  Emory,  in  the  New  Hampshire  con¬ 
ference  of  1835  refused  to  put  a  motion  to  adopt  a  com¬ 
mittee  report  on  slavery,  although  he  allowed  the  pro¬ 
posed  action  in  committee  of  the  whole.  39  A  good  ex- 


35  “Journals,”  I.  487.  The  pastoral  address  is  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,"’ 
June  17,  1836. 

36  “Journals,”  I.  499.  Some  excitement  was  produced  also  by 
the  necessity  of  dealing  with  the  anti-slavery  petitions  that  came  in. 
“Journals,”  I.  440,  475.  “Debate  on  ‘Modern  Abolitionism’,”  86. 

37  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  Document  20.  “Z.  H.”  Sept.  30, 

1835. 

38  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  141,  (Baltimore  and  N.  Y.  resolu¬ 
tions).  Matlack,  “Anti-slavery  Struggle,”  83,  (Extracts  from  Phil¬ 
adelphia  and  Pittsburg  resolutions).  The  N.  Y.  resolves  also  appear 
in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  1,  1836. 

39  Matlack,  “Am.  Slav,  and  Meth.,”  40-41.  This  is  perhaps 
“the  first  innovation  upon  Conference  Rights.” 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


35 


ample  of  this  problem  in  its  extreme  form  is  afforded 
by  the  proceedings  of  the  New  England  conference  in 
1837.  The  preachers  were  determined  that  a  strong 
expression  of  their  anti-slavery  views  should  be  placed 
on  record.  Bishop  Waugh  was  equally  determined 
that  it  should  not.  Since  he  was  a  stranger  to  their 
conference  they  thought  it  would  be  a  courteous  thing 
to  correspond,  or  confer,  with  him  beforehand.  He 
was  told  that  numerous  petitions  had  come  to  them 
asking  for  action  against  slavery ;  that  they  desired  to 
present  these  and  have  them  referred  to  a  committee. 
They  threatened  that  if  this  request  were  rejected  the 
conference  might  refuse  to  do  business  at  all.  The 
bishop  did  refuse,  arguing  that  conference  action  on 
slavery  was  unnecessary;  that  the  church  was  anti¬ 
slavery;  that  the  General  Conference  had  condemned 
abolitionism;  that  it  was  not  conference  business;  that 
their  proposed  action  would  unchristianize  the  South ; 
and  that  the  conference,  not  being  a  legislative  body, 
could  not  receive  petitions.  He  expressed  regret  at 
having  to  antagonize  such  a  body  of  men,  but  felt  that 
he  must  under  the  circumstances.  Appealing  to  them 
not  to  persist  he  asked:  “Will  you,  brethren,  hazard 
the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  .  .by 
agitating  those  fearfully  exciting  topics,  and  that  too, 
in  opposition  to  the  solemn  decision  and  deliberate  con¬ 
clusion  of  the  General  Conference  ? . . .  Are  you  will¬ 
ing  to  contribute  to  the  destruction  of  our  beautiful 
and  excellent  form  of  civil  40  and  political  government, 


40  One  of  the  commonest  ideas  running  through  this  whole 
controversy,  is  that  somehow  those  who  are  endangering  the  unity  of 
the  church  by  their  agitations  are  also  threatening  the  unity  of  the 
nation.  Such  thoughts  are  expressed,  for  instance,  in  the  following : 
“Debates,”  (1844),  90-91,  Remarks  of  Mr.  Bowen.  “Ibid.,”  95,  237,  Mr. 
Crowder.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  7,  1844,  Letter  of  W.  A.  Booth,  and  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  Wesley  Chapel  Station,  Washington,  D.  C.  Cartwright, 
“Autobiography,”  420.  Smith,  “Life  of  Bishop  Andrew,”  371.  Mass. 
Anti-slav.  Soc.,  Annual  Report,  (1845),  53. 


36  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

after  it  has  cost  the  labor,  treasure  and  blood  of  our 
fathers  to  establish  it?...  I  would  that  it  [slavery] 
were  obliterated  from  the  earth ;  but  in  view  of  the 
terrible  consequences  that  are  likely  to  follow  the 
agitation  of  those  exciting  topics  at  the  present  I  can¬ 
not  consent  to  be  participant  in  any  sense  or  degree, 
in  those  measures  which  are  advocated  by  modern  aboli¬ 
tionists.”  The  preachers  were  unconvinced  by  this 
pleading  and  demanded  equal  rights  with  the  Ohio, 
Baltimore,  New  York  and  other  conferences  in  the  ex¬ 
pression  of  their  opinions  on  slavery.  41  It  grieved 
them  to  see  that  theirs  was  the  only  class  of  opinions 
denied  free  expression  in  the  conferences.  42  No  com¬ 
promise  was  reached  and  when  the  conference  met  at 
Nantucket,  the  petitions  were  presented,  hut  the  presi¬ 
dent  refused  to  put  a  motion  referring  them  to  a  com¬ 
mittee,  or  to  allow  an  appeal  from  his  decision.  43  The 
conflict  was  resumed  at  the  next  annual  session  with 
the  same  negative  results.  Scott  made  several  at¬ 
tempts  at  this  session  to  get  resolutions  through  but 
failed  (1838).  Finally,  he  sat  down  evidently  grieved 
and  oppressed  by  the  proceedings.  The  bishop  then 
called  on  him  to  close  the  conference  with  singing  and 
prayer.  He  declined,  and  Horton,  another  staunch 
abolitionist  was  called  on.  With  a  certain  grim  humor 


41  This  episode  with  correspondence  between  the  bishop  and  the 
abolitionists  is  reported  in  “Z.  H.,”  June  28,  1837. 

42  For  instance,  aside  from  the  opposition  to  abolitionist  tactics 
expressed  in  the  resolutions  of  various  northern  conferences,  that  of 
Georgia  was  allowed  to  say  (1837)  :  “That  it  is  the  sense  of  the 
Georgia  Annual  Conference,  that  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  the  United 
States,  is  not  a  moral  evil.”  Copied  from  “Charleston  Mercury”  into 
“Z.  H.,”  Jan.  10,  1838.  This  partiality  the  radicals  naturally  resented 
and  it  evidenced  to  them  the  pro-slavery  leaning  of  the  official  church. 

43  “Z.  H.,”  July  5,  1837 ;  MS.  “Journal  New  England  Conf.,” 
June  14,  1837. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


37 


he  gave  out  the  following  verse  which  reports  say,  was 
sung  with  remarkable  fervor : 

“Come  my  partners  in  distress, 

My  comrades  through  this  wilderness, 

Who  still  your  bodies  feel. 

Awhile  forget  your  griefs  and  fears, 

And  look  beyond  this  vale  of  tears. ...”  etc.  44 


The  same  conflict  showed  itself  on  a  smaller  scale 
in  the  quarterly  meeting  conferences.  The  Meadville 
district  of  the  Erie  conference,  (1838),  Duxbury,  Mass., 
(1838),  and  Cleveland,  as  well  as  others  reported 
trouble.  The  experiences  of  Duxbury  are  typical.  At 
this  meeting  one  of  the  members  offered  a  set  of  resolu¬ 
tions  of  the  usual  import  but  the  final  one  of  the  set  is 
of  more  than  ordinary  significance.  It  declared  that 
“  while  God  gives  us  the  exercise  of  our  reason  and  the 
use  of  our  tongues,  we  will  continue  to  plead  for  the 
slave  and  will  not  be  silenced  by  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
bodies.”  Here  is  a  thinly  veiled  hint  at  rebellion 
against  the  church.  Methodist  opposition  to  slavery 
showed  ominous  signs  of  expanding  into  opposition  to 
the  government  and  constitution  of  the  church. 

The  presiding  elder  refused  to  put  the  resolutions 
to  vote  because  he  believed  them  to  be  opposed  to  the 
advice  of  the  General  Conference  and  a  reflection  on 
the  administration  of  the  bishops.  The  members  re¬ 
fused  to  do  any  other  business  until  the  vote  was  taken. 
The  presiding  elder  then  left  the  chair  thus  bringing 
the  session  to  an  abrupt  close.  One  of  the  preachers 


44  Matlack,  “Am.  Slav,  and  Methodism,”  60-61. 


38  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

took  his  place,  called  for  the  vote  on  the  resolutions 
which  were  passed  unanimously.45 

The  impossibility  of  getting  their  opinions  ex¬ 
pressed  through  what  they  thought  to  be  natural  chan¬ 
nels  led  the  Methodist  abolitionists  to  go  outside  the 
official  bodies  and  act  through  unofficial  conventions. 
Several  such  were  held  during  this  quadrennium. 46 
The  first  47  in  New  England  assembled  at  Lynn,  Mass., 
October  25  and  26,  1837.  It  issued  a  declaration  of 
sentiments  and  discussed  thoroughly  the  question  of 
conference  rights  on  which  it  set  forth  its  views  in  a 
special  report. 48  Another  convention  met  at  Utica, 
N.  Y.,  in  the  following  May.  Here  it  was  decided  to 


45  “Z.  H.,”  Oct.  31,  1838  ;  MS.  “Journal  New  Eng.  Conf.,”  June 

5,  10,  11,  12,  1839.  See  also  the  case  of  D.  Dorchester  at  the  same 
session.  Mr.  Sprague,  the  mover  of  the  resolutions,  remarked  signi¬ 
ficantly  during  the  discussion,  that  it  was  just  such  arbitrary  meas¬ 
ures  that  were  alienating  the  membership  from  Episcopal  Methodism, 
and  disturbing  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  church.  On  the 
oppressors  of  the  abolitionists,  he  believed,  rested  the  responsibility 
for  this  alienation.  At  a  quarterly  meeting  at  Duxbury  the  follow¬ 
ing  year  a  similar  clash  occurred.  “Z.  H.,”  Apr.  24,  1839.  Oc¬ 
casionally  there  appeared  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  press 
extreme  reactionary  views,  against  the  talk  of  church  oppression  and 
conference  rights.  For  instance  in  the  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  2,  1838, 
this  thesis  is  maintained  by  a  correspondent  signing  himself  “Doulos 
“The  will  of  the  church  in  all  things  indifferent — things  neither 
required  nor  prohibited  by  some  Scriptural  precept,  example,  or  neces¬ 
sary  inference - is  the  will  of  God  :  and  designed,  of  course,  to  be 

the  rule  of  our  conduct.”  The  controversy  over  conference  rights 
may  be  followed  further  by  means  of  a  plentiful  correspondence  in 
“C.  A.  and  J.,”  and  “Z.  H.”  In  the  former  every  issue  from  Dec.  1, 
1837  to  April  1,  1838,  except  those  of  Jan.  5  and  Feb.  23  gives  more 
or  less  space  to  the  subject. 

46  1836-1840. 

47  The  first  convention  of  this  sort  appears  to  have  met  in 
Cazenovia,  N.  Y.,  August,  1837.  It  is  referred  to  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,” 
Mar.  2,  1838.  (Editorial  and  Fisk’s  letter).  The  official  proceedings 
appear  in  “Z.  W.,”  Aug.  12,  1837. 

48  See  “Z.  H.,”  Oct.  11,  18,  Nov.  22,  29  and  Dec.  6,  1837.  The 
declaration  of  sentiments  appeared  Nov.  22,  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  on  slavery  a  week  later  and  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
conference  rights  appeared  Dec.  6.  See  also  “Z.  W.,”  Nov.  11,  1837. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


39 


send  a  delegate  and  an  address  to  the  British  Metho¬ 
dists.  Although  nothing  came  of  it  49  this  plan  was 
hailed  with  joy  by  abolitionists  in  the  church  as  they 
hoped  thus  to  get  a  fair  hearing  in  England  and  more 
sympathy  in  the  grand  work  of  emancipation.  50  A 
third  convention  at  Lowell  also  encouraged  them  in 
their  work.  51 

Another  policy  which  the  church  felt  obliged  to 
adopt  in  self  defence  proved  a  source  of  great  irrita¬ 
tion  to  the  agitators.  Great  care  was  taken  in  some 
conferences  to  exclude  abolitionists  from  the  traveling 
ministry.  The  experiences  of  Rev.  L.  C.  Matlack  52  of 
the  Philadelphia  conference  are  illustrative.  In  1837 
his  quarterly  meeting  conference  gave  him  a  unanimous 
recommendation  to  the  Philadelphia  annual  conference 
for  reception  as  a  traveling  preacher.  Just  before  that 
conference  met  he  helped  in  the  organization  of  a  small 
Wesleyan  anti-slavery  society  of  which  he  was  made 
secretary.  For  this  act  the  conference  rejected  him. 
Some  of  the  preachers  knew  him  and  were  friendly,  but 
the  bitter  feeling  against  the  abolitionists  kept  him  out. 
When  it  was  urged  upon  the  conference  that  he  was  a 


49  Scott,  the  delegate,  decided  not  to  go  fearing  forestallment 
and  embarrassment  from  the  representatives  of  the  regular  American 
Methodist  authorities.  “Anti-Slav.  Struggle,”  126. 

50  “Z.  H.,”  May  9,  1838. 

51  “Z.  H.,”  Dec.  5,  12,  1838.  These  numbers  contain  the  min¬ 
utes  of  the  convention  (held  Nov.  21  and  22)  and  its  address  to  the 
church. 

52  Mr.  Matlack  was  born  in  1816.  He  connected  himself  with 
the  Sunday  school  at  Union  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Philadelphia, 
where  he  was  soon  promoted  to  an  official  position.  He  was  licensed 
to  preach  but  being  unable  to  enter  the  Philadelphia  conference  he 
went  to  New  England.  He  seceded  from  the  M.  E.  Church  to  join 
the  Wesleyan  Connection  in  1843,  hut  later  in  life  returned  to  his  old 
church  allegiance,  and  wrote  the  history  of  the  struggle  therein  for  aboli¬ 
tionism.  He  also  wrote  a  history  of  the  Wesleyan  Church  and  a 
biography  of  O.  Scott. 


40  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


young  man  of  piety  and  talents,  one  member  exclaimed 
in  reply:  “If  he  were  as  pious  as  St.  Paul  and  as 
talented  as  an  angel,  he  should  never  enter  this  con¬ 
ference  as  an  abolitionist  if  I  could  prevent  it.”  He 
was  allowed  to  act  as  assistant  at  West  Chester  and 
spent  the  year  there.  In  the  following  year  his  appli¬ 
cation  was  again  refused  although  he  was  continued  as 
an  assistant.  Circumstances  now  brought  him  into 
touch  with  Orange  Scott.  He  attended  the  Utica  and 
Lowell  conventions  and  became  associated  with  Scott 
in  the  pastorate  of  the  Lowell  church.  53 

Similar  in  its  irritating  effect  was  the  persecution, 
as  it  seemed  to  its  victims,  of  abolitionist  preachers 
already  in  the  traveling  connection.  Immediate^ 
after  the  General  Conference  of  1836  Scott  was  re¬ 
moved  from  the  presiding  eldership  of  the  Providence 
district.  After  a  year  of  successful  work  as  pastor  at 
Lowell,  he  spent  the  two  following  years  on  the  anti¬ 
slavery  lecture  platform,  then  returned  to  Lowell 


53  For  a  full  account  of  these  transactions  see  Matlack,  L.  C., 
“Narrative  of  Anti-slavery  Experiences.” 

Just  before  the  annual  conference  met,  Matlack  met  his  pastor 
on  the  street  and  the  following  dialogue  took  place:  “So  you  attended 
at  the  formation  of  the  Abolition  Society  the  other  night.” 

“Yes,  Sir,  I  was  present  with  others.” 

“And  you  was  [sic]  made  Secretary,  I  understand.” 

“I  was.”  . 

“Well,  were  not  all  those  persons  members  of  an  Anti-slavery 
Society  already?” 

“I  was  not  aware  of  the  fact.” 

“Why,  were  they  not  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ?” 

“They  were  without  an  exception.” 

“Is  not  the  Methodist  Church  an  Anti-slavery  Society?” 

“Perhaps  it  is.  So  it  is  a  Temperance  Society,  but  all  admit  the 
propriety  of  forming  Total  Abstinance  Societies,  and  joining  with 
them.” 

“Well,  a  set  of  Tomsonian  quacks  have  as  much  right  to  get  to¬ 
gether  and  form  a  Society,  and  call  it  the  Medical  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  etc.  “Narrative  of  Experiences,”  3-4. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


41 


where  Matlack  was  associated  with  him  as  we  have 
seen.  54  LaRoy  Sunderland  was  another  to  feel  the 
heavy  hand  of  authority.  Soon  after  joining  the 
ranks  of  abolition,  he  was  made  editor  of  “ Zion’s 
Watchman”55  a  radical  organ.  The  conservatives  in 
the  New  York  conference  stung  by  the  sort  of  gospel 
he  preached  through  his  paper  condemned  it  by  reso¬ 
lution  and  during  the  discussion  the  most  violent 
charges  were  brought  against  him.  He  was  accused 
of  publishing  profanity,  of  slandering  every  minister 
in  the  church,  of  being  unfit  to  edit  a  religious  paper, 
and  unworthy  of  the  confidence  of  his  brethren.  Dr. 
Bangs  prosecuted  him  on  charges  of  slander  and  mis¬ 
representation  before  the  New  England  conference 
of  1836 ;  but  his  many  friends  in  that  body  won  his 
exoneration.  His  foes  returned  to  the  attack  at  each 
annual  session,  until  in  1840  he  was  convicted  on  one 
of  many  counts,  that  of  having  slandered  Bishop  Soule, 
by  approving  editorially  a  pointed  piece  of  pungent 
poetry  applied  to  him.  Considering  the  position 
of  the  bishop  it  was  decidedly  daring  and  outspoken 
and  showed  how  intolerant  and  exasperating  the  radi¬ 
cals  could  be.  The  poem  was  apropos  of  the  bishop’s 
declared  refusal  ever  to  advise  anyone  to  free  a  slave. 
The  last  stanza  is  as  follows : 

“Receive  this  truth — deep,  dark  thy  stain! 

Thy  very  soul  is  tinged  with  blood! 

Go,  do  thy  first  works  o’er  again; 

Go,  cleanse  thee  in  the  Saviour’s  blood.” 


54  Matlack,  “Life  of  Scott,”  109-111,  115-118,  121.  “Am.  Slav, 
and  Meth.,”  158. 

55  See  MS.  “Statement”  of  Sunderland’s  p.  6  for  some  facts  on 
the  founding  of  the  “Watchman.”  (This  “Statement”  belongs  to  the 
New  England  Methodist  Hist.  Soc.  Libr.,  Boston.)  Sunderland  car¬ 
ried  the  whole  of  the  first  issue  to  the  post  office  himself,  in  a 
pillow  case. 


42  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

The  only  penalty  was  that  he  publish  the  decision  in 
his  paper  without  note  or  comment.  56 

A  little  incident  at  the  trial  at  which  he  was  thus 
convicted  brings  out  the  extreme  bitterness  between 
the  two  parties.  Bishops  Soule  himself  was  presiding 
(very  unwisely  under  the  circumstances,  one  would 
think)  and  his  rulings  on  his  own  case  brought  sharp 
words  from  the  defendant.  These  seemed  to  Soule 
to  require  a  stern  rebuke.  He  tried  to  administer  it 
thus :  “In  all  my  experience, ’ ’  he  said,  4 4 and  in  all 
my  intercourse  with  my  fellowmen,  I  have  this  to  say, 
that  LaRoy  Sunderland  is  the  first  man  that  ever 
dared  to  speak  to  me  in  that  manner.”  Sunderland 
almost  screamed  in  reply,  44I  thank  God,  Sir,  that  you 
have  lived  long  enough  to  find  one  man  who  will  tell 
you  to  your  face  what  many  others  say  of  you  behind 
your  back.”56a  The  several  trials  under  these 
charges  were  too  much  for  Sunderland.  He  with¬ 
drew  from  the  traveling  ministry  and  from  the  church, 
and  later  in  life  repudiated  orthodox  Christianity  al¬ 
together. 

Thus  the  struggle  went  on  and  in  spite  of  rebuffs 
abolitionists  continued  for  a  time  their  policy  of  boring 
from  within  the  church.  Considerable  activit}^  was 


56  For  other  cases  of  alleged  persecution  see  Matlack,  “Am. 
Slav,  and  Meth.,”  ch.  XIV. 

56a  These  trials  may  be  followed  in  “Z.  W.,”  Aug.  3,  10,  17,  24, 
31,  1836,  and  on  through  year  by  year  to  1840  ;  also  in  MS.  “Journal 
New  Eng.  Conf.,”  1836,  1837,  1838,  1839,  1840.  The  account  for 
1840  is  very  full.  The  poem  is  in  the  issue  of  “Z.  H.,”  Aug.  15, 
1840,  and  the  required  statement  of  the  findings  of  the  conference 
against  Sunderland  is  published  in  black  faced  type  with  a  heavy 
border,  Aug.  1,  1840.  A  general  statement  of  the  trials  by  Sunder¬ 
land  may  be  seen  in  his  MS.  “Statement,”  7-17.  The  poem  and 
introduction  appear  at  pages  11,  17.  The  defiance  of  the  bishop  is 
on  page  16.  The  dialogue  is  somewhat  differently  stated  there  from 
what  I  have  stated  it  in  the  text.  The  text  statement  is  from 
Matlack,  “Anti-slav.  Struggle  and  Tri.,”  132  n.  See  also  Matlack, 
“Am.  Slav,  and  Meth.,”  250-54. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


43 


being  manifested  in  western  New  York,  western  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  Ohio  and  Michigan  as  well  as  other  places 
outside  New  England. 56b  Many  members  also  both 
lay  and  clerical,  had  become  thoroughly  disgusted 
with  the  pro-slavery,  or  merely  nominal  anti-slavery, 
position  of  the  church,  with  what  they  regarded  as 
the  tyranny  of  the  episcopal  administration,  and  with 
the  undemocratic  polity  that  would  tolerate  it.  In 
the  light  of  the  harrowing  experiences  of  recent  years 
what  could  be  the  mutual  attitude  of  the  two  wings 
of  the  church  at  the  approaching  General  Con¬ 
ference  ? 57  Orange  Scott  had  again  been  elected  a 
delegate  and  had  spent  some  time  trying  to  answer  the 
abolitionist’s  part  of  this  question.  A  very  significant 
correspondence  was  going  on  between  him  and  some 
friends  about  it.  One  writer  fearing  that  Scott’s 
name  might  be  stricken  from  the  list  of  members  at 
the  first  meeting  of  the  Conference,  asked  what  the 
other  New  England  delegates  would  do  in  that  con¬ 
tingency.  Another  hoped  that  if  any  proscriptive 
action  was  taken  it  would  be  such  as  to  drive  all 
abolitionists  in  the  church  to  sustain  their  leaders.  If 
they  could  not  stay  in  the  old  church  and  oppose 
slavery,  they  did  not  want  to  be  absorbed  into  other 
denominations,  but  preferred  to  remain  Methodists,  in 
an  independent  denomination  with  some  modifications 
in  church  government.  In  other  words  a  new  church 
was  clearly  hinted  at.  Scott  himself  had  no  idea  that 
the  Methodist  church  could  hold  together  after  the 
Conference.  Writing  to  Cyrus  Prindle  Jan.  1,  1840, 
he  said,  “I  have  no  expectation  that  the  Church  will  all 
remain  together  after  the  next  General  Conference. 
There  will  either  be  a  split  between  the  North  and  the 


56b  “American  Slav,  and  Meth.,”  ch.  XI. 
57  Of  1840. 


44  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

South,  or  such  measures  will  be  adopted  as  will  render 
it  inconvenient  and  inconsistent  for  the  abolitionists  to 
remain  in  the  Church,  should  the  doctrine  be  set  up  at 
Baltimore,  [the meeting  place  of  the  General  Conference] 
of  which  I  have  no  doubt,  that  Bishops  and  Presiding 
Elders  are  the  annual  and  quarterly  conferences — i.  e. 
that  no  business  can  be  done  except  as  they  please  and 
if  in  addition  to  this,  oppressive  measures  should  be 
adopted  against  the  freedom  of  speech  {abolitionism) , 
I,  for  one,  could  not  longer  remain  in  the  Church.” 
Rumors  were  rife  of  proscriptive  measures  to  be  taken 
by  the  General  Conference,  and  the  unequal  contest 
within  the  church  was  making  the  once  dreaded  alter¬ 
native  of  separation  appear  quite  bearable.  58 

With  the  radicals  in  this  mood  and  their  foes  con¬ 
sidering  anything  but  concession  the  Conference  met.59 
Petitions  for  moderate  episcopacy,  lay  representation, 
anti-slavery  action  and  petitions  condemning  any  anti¬ 
slavery  action  poured  in.  A  committee  was  appointed 
to  consider  them.  Scott  presented  a  petition  from  New 
York  City,  which  cost  the  Conference  much  time  and 
temper.  It  was  claimed  that  the  petition  had  been 
padded,  and  an  elaborate  investigation  by  each  party 
succeeded  only  in  convincing  each  set  of  partisans  that 
it  was  right.  The  episode  showed  how  keen  each  side 
was  to  find  something  damaging  to  the  'other.  60  We 


58  Matlack,  “Life  of  Scott,”  161-164. 

59  It  met  at  Baltimore,  May  1,  1840.  The  twenty-eight  annual 
conferences  were  represented  by  143  delegates.  “Journals,”  II.  (1840), 
4,  7. 

60  The  episode  may  be  followed  in  “Journals,”  II.  (1840),  14,  82  ; 
Matlack,  “Scott,”  166-173;  “Z.  W.,”  June  27,  1840;  “Z.  H.,”  June  3, 
1840;  “C.  A.  and  J„”  May  15  and  June  5,  1840. 

The  conservative  investigators  claimed  to  find  that  813  of  the 
1154  alleged  signers  were  women,  that  100  names  were  entered  twice ; 
that  many  names  were  forgeries,  that  many  of  the  signers  were  not 
Methodists,  that  it  contained  names  of  young  children  and  that  some 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


45 


may  note  in  passing  that  the  Conference  unlike  its 
predecessor,  was  unable  to  get  on  the  records  any  clear 
cut  condemnation  of  abolitionism.  There  was  one 
question  before  the  Conference,  insistent,  transcendant, 
threatening,  on  the  decision  of  which  hung  the  future 
unity  of  the  church,  and  that  was  the  question  of  con¬ 
ference  rights.  Little  doubt  existed  as  to  how  it  would 
be  decided.  It  came  up  during  the  Conference  in  two 
ways,  and  first  through  a  case  of  appeal.  Rev.  Daniel 
Dorchester,  a  presiding  elder  in  the  New  England  con¬ 
ference,  had  been  condemned  for  exceedinghis  authority 
in  suddenly  ending  a  quarterly  conference  in  the  midst 
of  business  he  had  permitted  to  come  before  it,  61  thus 
abridging  its  privileges.  The  appeal  was  admitted 
and  after  a  hearing  it  was  resolved  that  the  decision  of 
the  New  England  conference  imposing  censure  on  him 
should  be  reversed.  62  This  resolution  clearly  fore¬ 
shadowed  the  action  Conference  would  take  on  the 
problem  that  had  so  irritated  the  abolitionists.  The 
second  time  it  came  up  through  a  direct  request  from 
the  bishops  for  an  authoritative  ruling  for  their  own 
future  guidance.  63  Toward  its  close  the  Conference 


whose  names  appeared  had  absolutely  refused  to  sign.  The  anti¬ 
slavery  people  took  up  the  affair  and  proved  to  their  own  satisfaction 
at  least,  that  except  for  some  slight  misunderstandings  it  was  all  right. 
Two  petitions,  one  on  slavery  and  one  on  temperance,  it  was  said,  had 
been  mixed  up.  One  of  the  fictitious  names,  a  Miss  Patten,  who 
could  not  be  found  at  219  Allen  Street,  the  address  given,  was  found 
at  129  in  the  same  street,  etc.  Some  who  were  reported  to  have  been 
imposed  upon  in  signing  said  so  only  when  asked  if  they  had  signed 
a  petition  for  amalgamation,  for  a  division  of  the  church,  or  for  a  new 
Discipline,  and  of  course  they  could  truthfully  say  that  they  had 
signed  no  such  petition,  that  if  their  names  were  on  it  it  was  only  by 
imposition.  (How  human  !  !) 

61  “Z.  H.,”  Oct.  2,  Nov.  13,  20,  1839  ;  MS.  “Journal  New  Eng. 
Conf.,”  June  13,  14,  1839. 

62  “Journals,”  II.  (1840),  46-48;  “Z.  H.,”  May  20,  1840;  “C. 
A.  and  J.,”  May  22,  1840. 

63  “Journals,”  II.  (1840),  138. 

The  address  of  the  bishops  in  which  this  request  was  made  is  in 
“Z.  H.,”  May  20,  1840  and  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  22,  1840. 


46  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

decided  that  the  president  had  the  right  to  decline 
putting  a  question  which  in  his  judgment  did  not 
relate  to  the  proper  business  of  an  annual  conference, 
provided  that,  on  request,  he  must  insert  in  the  journal 
his  refusal  and  the  reasons  therefor,  and,  if  the  mem¬ 
bers  differed  from  the  president,  they  also  might 
record  their  dissent.  It  was  decided  further  that  the 
president  of  an  annual  or  quarterly  conference  might 
adjourn  it  when  in  his  judgment,  all  its  proper  business 
had  been  transacted.  And  here  again  if  its  members 
took  exception  to  his  course,  such  exception  might  be 
entered  in  the  journal.  04  Thus  the  whole  contention 
of  the  abolitionists  was  denied.  The  presiding  officer 
could  fully  control  their  activities  in  the  local  con¬ 
ferences.  The  thing  that  Scott  most  dreaded  had 
happened.  65 

The  abolitionist  outlook  was  now  decidedly  cloudy. 
It  was  a  period  of  great  discouragement  especially  for 
those  in  the  Methodist  Church  as  they  had  just  wit¬ 
nessed  the  sweeping  victory  of  their  opponents  in  the 
highest  legislative  body  of  the  denomination.  In  the 
summer  of  1840  Scott,  by  the  authority  of  the  Utica 
convention,  called  a  new  convention  to  meet  in  New 
York  City  the  following  October.  The  call  gave  the 
doings  of  the  late  Conference  as  sufficient  reason  for 
meeting.  Numerically  it  was  a  great  success — the 
largest  convention  ever  held  by  the  Methodist  radicals, 
— but  its  results  were  disappointing.  It  organized  an 


64  “Journals,”  II.  (1840),  111-112,  120-121;  “Z.  H.,”  June  10, 
1840;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  June  12,  1840. 

The  proceedings  are  naturally  given  more  fully  in  the  church 
newspapers  than  in  the  “Journals.” 

65  It  will  be  recalled  that  it  was  this  Conference  that  passed 
the  resolution  noted  at  the  end  of  chapter  I.  which  marked  the 
furthest  step  of  official  Methodism  away  from  the  high  standards  of 
the  early  days. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


47 


American  Wesleyan  Anti-Slavery  Society  which  failed 
to  survive  its  first  anniversary;  and  its  plan  for  a 
separate  anti-slavery  missionary  society  met  with  little 
public  favor.  67  The  radicals,  both  in  and  out  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  fallen  on  evil  days. 
It  was  a  time  of  reaction,  lethargy  and  disappointment 
among  them.  The  Garrisonian  party  had  split  on  the 
rocks  of  internal  dissension.  Personal  disagreements, 
differences  over  the  Bible,  the  status  of  women,  non- 
resistance  and  politics  had  divided  them  fatally.  08  The 
annual  income  of  the  older  society  fell  from  $47,000  to 
$7,000,  and  the  number  of  local  societies  and  members 
declined  greatly.  The  new  society  formed  in  1840  had 
no  such  galaxy  of  speakers  and  writers  as  the  older 
one  ;  the  western  societies  never  united  with  it,  and  rad¬ 
ical  abolitionism  appeared  to  be  waning  before  the  more 
practical  political  anti-slavery  movement  connected 
with  the  proposed  annexation  of  Texas. 69  Many 
Methodists  formerly  active  fell  out  of  the  fight.  Scott’s 
health  failed  and  he  dropped  his  work  at  Lowell,  Mass., 
retiring  to  Newbury,  Vt.,  where  he  occupied  himself 
with  manual  labor  and  the  writing  of  an  occasional 
letter  to  the  press.  Meetings  were  held  in  various 
parts  of  the  country,  and  formal  activity  kept  up,  but 
the  loss  of  interest  could  not  be  concealed.  For  the 
Methodist  abolitionists  there  was  no  more  prospect  of 
winning  the  church  over  to  their  views  than  there  had 
been  in  1836.  “Zion’s  Watchman”  was  forsaken  and 
interested  itself  in  mesmerism.  70  “Zion’s  Herald” 


67  Matlack,  “American  Slavery  and  Methodism,”  223-5.  An 
official  account  of  the  proceedings  appears  in  “Z.  II.,”  Nov.  4  and  11, 
1840,  taken  from  “The  Watchman.”  The  Convention  sat  October  6,  7, 
8,  1840. 

68  Hart,  “Slavery  and  Abolition,”  197. 

69  “Ibid.,”  201. 

70  See  articles  appearing  Sept.  11,  1841  and  succeeding  issues, 
also  material  in  the  issues  of  Oct.  23,  30,  1841. 


48  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

almost  ceased  to  print  anti-slavery  articles.  In  the  fall 
of  1842  Bishop  Hedding  could  say  that  the  radical 
excitement  in  the  church  was  at  an  end.  The  editor 
of  the  “Herald”  said  that  the  abolitionists  in  turning 
the  war  from  slavery  to  the  episcopacy  had  contributed 
to  the  general  depression.  Doubtless  the  clearer 
appreciation  of  the  alternatives  before  them  led  many 
to  pause  in  their  course.  Scott  summed  up  the  situation 
candidly  in  1842  when  he  remarked  that  there  was 
no  choice  “but  to  submit  pretty  much  to  things  as  they 
are  or  secede.”  Secessions  were  no  new  experience 
for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  had  oc¬ 
curred  at  intervals  almost  from  its  foundation.  Since 
1839  secessions  of  individuals  and  small  groups  of 
abolitionists  had  taken  place  in  Ohio,  New  York,  Michi¬ 
gan,  Pennsylvania  and  elsewhere.  71  This  was  the 
net  result  of  the  clash  between  the  radicals  and  the 
church  officials  and  press  during  the  preceding  decade. 
When  these  fragments  came  together  we  had  a  new 
denomination,  a  purely  anti-slavery  secession  —  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of  America. 

While  Scott  was  in  retirement  the  Lowell  churches 
managed  to  get  into  trouble  with  the  bishop  (1841). 
They  had  petitioned  for  a  preacher,  then  stationed  in 
Ithaca,  and  had  been  refused.  They  next  adopted  the 
revolutionary  course  of  choosing  a  pastor  for  them¬ 
selves  regardless  of  the  episcopacy,  the  only  legal 
appointing  power  in  the  church.  Scott,  whom  they 
called  to  their  pulpit  abetted  them.  A  bitter  fight  en- 


71  This  account  is  made  up  from  the  following  : 

Matlack,  “Am.  Slav,  and  Meth.,”  233  ;  Matlack,  “Scott,”  185  ;  “Z. 
H.,”  June  15,  1842,  (Letter  of  Scott  to  the  “Herald”)  ;  Luther  Lee, 
“Autobiography,”  ch.  XXV. ;  Matlack,  “Wesleyan  Methodist  Con¬ 
nection,”  301-306,  (part  of  his  “Am.  Slav,  and  Methodism”).  The 
quotation  is  taken  from  the  letter  to  the  “Herald.” 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


49 


sued  during  which  the  churches  were  declared  outside 
the  connection.  Shortly  a  compromise  was  effected 
which  appeared  to  satisfy  all  parties.  72  The  sig¬ 
nificance  of  this  incident,  thinks  Scott’s  biographer, 
lies  in  the  part  it  played  in  reviving  his  radicalism, 
which  for  a  time  he  had  restrained.  His  funda¬ 
mental  dissatisfaction  with  the  church  and  the  steady 
stream  of  correspondence  73  urging  him  to  blaze 
the  way  for  his  friends  caused  the  movement  toward 
secession  to  proceed  more  rapidly. 

A  meeting  at  Albany  in  November,  was  suggested 
to  talk  things  over.  In  September  Scott  wrote  to 
Prindle  that  after  hesitating  and  hesitating  he  had  at 
last  decided  to  leave  the  church.  He  asked  if  Prindle 
was  willing  to  join  with  Horton,  Sunderland  and  him¬ 
self  in  an  anti-slavery,  anti-intemperance,  anti-every- 
thing-wrong  church  organization.  He  thought  that 
within  a  year  they  could  have  over  a  score  of  ministers 
and  one  or  two  thousand  members.  As  a  general  plan 


72  The  Lowell  affair  can  be  followed  in  “Z.  H.,”  Aug.  25,  Sept. 
15,  22  and  Oct.  6,  1841  ;  MS.  “Journal  New  Eng.  Conf.,”  July  2,  1842, 
July  3,  4,  5.  6,  1843.  Strange  to  say  Scott  was  never  punished  for 
his  part  in  this  local  revolt.  In  a  letter  to  three  of  the  bishops  and 
the  editor  of  the  New  York  official  paper,  while  claiming  to  stand 
firm  on  fundamentals,  he  retreated  somewhat  on  questions  of  method 
and  detail.  This  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  his  escape. 
The  nature  of  this  letter  can  be  seen  from  editor  Bond’s  letter  to 
Scott  in  reply,  Matlack,  “Scott,”  194-95. 

73  Matlack,  “Scott,”  196-201.  Before  the  Conference  of  1840 
a  preacher  had  written  to  him:  “We  must  have  a  new  church.” 
Another  in  1841  said,  “The  time  has  come.  .  .  .  We  must  have  a  new 
connection  on  Wesleyan  principles.”  One  who  had  already  seceded 
wrote,  “How  long  are  you  going  to  hold  on?  We  have  created  an 
appetite  among  many  lay  members  for  liberty....  Now,  Bro.  Scott, 
does  not  duty  require  that  you  should  look  after  the  scattered  sheep?” 
In  the  summer  of  1842  his  friends  were  telling  him  that  abolitionists 
wondered  what  had  become  of  him.  “You  have  been,”  said  one,  “the 
leading  spirit  in  the  mighty  war  for  principles  that  has  been  going 
on.  .  .  and  all  eyes  are  turned  to  you.  . . .  Our  enemies  however  think 
you  have  submitted  and  begged  for  favor.” 


50  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


of  government  he  suggested  that  of  the  English  Wes- 
leyans  with  improvements.  74  At  the  Albany  meet¬ 
ing  75  they  decided  definitely  to  withdraw.  They 
discussed  the  principles  of  the  new  connection, 
and  planned  a  new  weekly  paper,  the  first  number  of 
which  should  contain  their  reasons  for  leaving  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  76  Briefly  summarized 
their  published  reasons  were  as  follows:  (1)  The 
Methodist  Church  makes  itself  responsible  for  slavery 
by  having  no  rule  forbidding  slaveholding  by  private 
members,  by  declaring  slaveholding  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  golden  rule,  and  by  allowing  annual  con¬ 
ferences  to  say  it  is  not  a  moral  evil;  (2)  it  is  aristo¬ 
cratic  in  its  government  and  no  logic  can  make  it  appear 
democratic;  and  (3)  it  has  adopted  an  uncharitable 
attitude  toward  the  dissenting  brethren.  77  Obviously 
the  only  real  cause  of  the  secession  was  dissatisfaction 
with  the  position  of  the  church  on  slavery;  the  other 
grievances  were  incidental  to  this. 

A  preliminary  convention  was  held  at  Andover, 
Mass.,  in  February,  1843,  which  approved  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  local  Wesleyan  Societies  pending  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  general  organization,  and  called  a  great  con¬ 
vention  to  meet  at  Utica,  May  31,  1843.  78  A  special 


74  Matlack,  “Scott,”  202. 

75  Nov.  2,  3,  1842. 

76  Matlack,  “Scott,”  202-204;  Luther  Lee,  “Autobiog.,”  cli. 
XXVI.  The  new  paper  was  “The  True  Wesleyan.” 

77  Scott,  “Grounds  of  Secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,”  10-13.  See  also  Matlack,  “Wesleyan  Meth.  Connection,” 
308-17.  Luther  Lee,  “Autobiog.,”  ch.  XXVII. 

Scott’s  pamphlet  is  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  circumstances  of 
the  secession. 

The  MS  “Journal  New  Eng.  Conf.,”  1843,  1844,  records  several 
withdrawals  of  individual  preachers  and  of  societies. 

78  Matlack,  “Wesleyan  Methodist  Conn.,”  325-32. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


51 


invitation  was  sent  to  the  Michigan  seceders  to  attend 
at  Utica,  and  local  conventions  everywhere  were  ad¬ 
vised  in  anticipation  of  the  May  meeting.  At  the 
Utica  gathering  the  Wesleyan  Connection  was  formally 
organized.  Excepting  Maine,  all  the  New  England 
States  were  represented,  together  with  New  York, 
Pennsylvania  and  Michigan.  The  new  Discipline,  dif¬ 
fering  considerably,  as  one  might  expect,  from  that  of 
the  mother  church,  prohibited  slaveholding,  and  the 
use  of  intoxicating  liquors.  It  provided  for  lay  repre¬ 
sentation  in  the  conferences,  allowed  conferences  to 
elect  their  own  presidents,  and  formed  a  stationing  com¬ 
mittee  of  six,  whose  chief  duty  was  to  confirm  as  far  as 
possible  arrangements  made  between  pastors  and 
people.  Geographically,  the  new  church  was  divided 
into  six  conferences  stretching  from  Maine  to  Michigan, 
and  from  the  lakes  to  the  slavery  line.  It  started  with 
a  membership  of  about  6000.  79 

Meantime  this  movement  had  not  been  unnoticed 
by  the  officials,  press  and  loyal  membership  of  the  old 
church.  Its  aims  had  been  ridiculed,  its  leaders  mis¬ 
judged  and  misrepresented  in  the  most  violent  manner. 
Neither  side  could  claim  a  monopoly  of  bitter  personal¬ 
ity  and  the  tendency  to  impute  the  lowest  of  motives  to 
its  opponents.  Certain  it  is  that  the  whole  movement 
can  be  adequately  accounted  for  from  the  viewpoint  of 
either  side  without  resorting  to  individual  selfishness 
or  love  of  place  and  power  as  explanations.  Yet  all  the 
way  through  it  was  apparently  an  axiom  with  either 


79  “Ibid.,”  334-37.  At  their  first  General  Conference,  in  the  fall 
of  1844,  the  membership  had  more  than  doubled  and  four  new  con¬ 
ferences  were  added.  “Ibid.,”  338,  349  ;  “Life  of  Scott,”  220  ;  “Dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of  America,”  22,  26, 
27,  29,  31,  91,  94-96  ;  Luther  Lee,  “Autobiog.,”  ch.  XXVIII. 


52  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

party  that  the  other  must  be  actuated  by  unworthy 
personal  motives.  80 


80  This  is  the  saddest  revelation  that  comes  to  the  student  of 
this  division.  Scott  freely  admitted  that  his  methods  and  language 
and  personalities  had  been  too  violent,  and  in  his  calmer  moments  he 
deplored  his  failing.  See  his  letter  in  “Z.  H.,”  June  15,  1842.  Illustra¬ 
tions  of  the  extravagances  of  his  opponents  are  plentiful  also.  Here 
is  a  Southern  minister’s  opinion  of  Sutherland  and  “The  Watchman 
“Did  you  calculate  to  misrepresent  the  Methodist  Discipline  and  say 
it  supported  abolitionism,  when  the  General  Conference,  in  their  late 
resolutions,  denounced  it  as  a  libel  on  truth?  ‘O,  full  of  subtlety,  thou 
child  of  the  Devil!’  all  liars  saith  the  sacred  volume  shall  have  their 
part  in  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone.’’  “Desiring  no  further  acquaint¬ 
ance  with  you,  and  never  expecting  to  see  you  but  once  in  time  or 
eternity,  that  is  at  judgment,  I  subscribe  myself,  the  friend  of  the 
Bible  and  the  opposer  of  Abolitionists.”  Parker  Pillsbury,  “The 
Church  As  It  Is,”  18,  (edition  of  1847). 

The  most  sinister  motives  are  suspected  as  seen  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  extract  from  an  editorial  in  “Zion’s  Herald,”  Nov.  2,  1842,  when 
it  came  to  the  editor’s  ears  that  secession  was  brewing  :  “What  is  the 
precise  form  of  the  proposed  movement,  we  cannot  say  ;  but  we  can 
say,  that  it  is  not  to  be  an  honest  effort,  by  discussion  or  petition,  to 
alter  our  economy .  but  a  revolt,  in  which  the  leaders  by  their  secret 
correspondence  and  preparations,  are  to  carry  with  them  all  the  spoils 
they  can.  As  improbable  and  iniquitous  as  such  a  project  may  seem 
to  our  readers,  we  now  assure  them  that  such  it  substantially  is.  .  .  .” 

The  following  editorial  extract  from  “The  Christian  Advocate  and 
Journal,”  Nov.  9,  1842,  is  still  more  to  be  deplored  :  “The  agents  of 
this  great  enterprise  are,  certain  preachers  who  had  grown  so  big 
that,  as  we  had  long  ago  foreseen,  we  poor  Methodists,  could  find  no 
place  among  us  large  enough  for  their  accommodation.  They  have, 
at  length,  resolved  to  make  a  place  for  themselves,  and  we  predict 
that  they  will,  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  two,  be  sweated  down  to 
naturalsized  men  or  be  crushed  to  death  by  the  fall  of  the  building  they 
are  erecting.  .  .  .  They  will  now  hazard  all  for  revenge.  ...” 

See  also  “Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,”  Nov.  30,  1842,  for  an 
editorial  headed  “The  Denouement.  Wonderful  Explosion.  Sunder¬ 
land,  Scott  &  Co.  Again.”  This  is  a  very  sarcastic  reference  to  their 
leaving  the  church,  in  the  course  of  which  occurs  the  following- 
sentence  :  “But,  the  truth  is,  this  ultra  abolitionism  is  only  the  mask, 
the  thin  disguise,  which  has  been  made  to  hide  an  ulterior  purpose  for 
a  long  time  past” — a  statement  as  far  from  the  truth  as  the  con¬ 
tinual  abolitionist  assumption  that  the  course  of  the  bishops  in  the 
northeastern  annual  conferences  was  inspired  solely  by  a  desire  to 
retain  power  and  authority. 

There  is  ample  evidence  that  party  policy  played  a  prominent  role 
on  both  sides.  It  was  intimated  that  the  authorities  wanted  to 
drive  the  radicals  out  for  effect,  and  that  the  radicals  hoped  for 
violent  action  against  themselves  as  that  would  unite  them  and  make 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


53 


The  .  Wesleyan  secession  had  an  immediate  effect 
on  the  Methodist  Chnrch  especially  in  the  northeast. 
Abolitionists  who  wished  to  stand  by  the  old  ship  were 
aroused  from  their  inactivity.  It  was  necessary  to 
develop  the  anti-slavery  spirit  among  loyal  Methodists 
in  order  to  stem  the  exodus  from  the  church.  Loyal 
Methodists  began  to  employ  the  previously  much  de¬ 
nounced  convention  for  their  own  purposes.  Several 
were  held  in  the  winter  and  early  spring  of  1843.  It 
seemed  as  if  New  England  were  moving  en  masse,  and 
the  utterances  of  these  gatherings  were  the  most  radi¬ 
cal  ever  heard.  It  was  determined  to  convince  Metho¬ 
dists  that  no  one  needed  to  leave  the  church  in  order 
to  be  a  thorough  abolitionist.  Immediately  after  the 
withdrawal  of  Scott  and  his  companions,  the  first  con¬ 
vention  was  called  by  a  group  of  Boston  preachers,  to 
meet  in  that  city  January  18  and  19,  1843.  Its  object 
was  to  preserve  the  unity  and  harmony  of  the  church. 
Many,  including  the  editor  of  11  Zion’s  Herald” 
approved  it  upon  this  ground  and  upon  this  ground 
alone.  The  convention  voted  that  slaveholding  was 
sin,  and  that  nothing  short  of  speedy  separation  from 
slavery  could  satisfy  abolitionists  and  save  the  church 
from  serious  division.  81 


them  look  more  like  martyrs.  See  letter  of  Moses  Hill,  (Matlack, 
“Anti-Slavery  Struggle  and  Triumph,”  145),  for  intimation  of  a  plan 
to  drive  the  radicals  out.  See  also  letter  of  Horton,  (Matlack,  “Life 
of  Scott,”  191-92),  for  an  intimation  that  the  radicals  realized  the 
value  to  themselves  of  expulsion  by  the  church. 

81  For  the  Boston  Convention  see  “Z.  H.,”  Dec.  28,  1842,  (call 
for  the  Convention  and  a  brief  approving  editorial)  ;  Jan.  4,  11,  and 
18,  1843.  Jan.  25,  1843,  there  appeared  the  full  official  proceedings. 
Its  “Address  to  the  Slaveholders  of  the  Church”  appeared  serially  in 
the  issues  Feb.  1,  8  and  15,  1843. 

There  is  some  evidence  that  the  Boston  Convention  was  packed 
by  men  who  had  already  decided  to  secede.  To  the  extent  that  this 
was  true  it  militates  somewhat  against  the  significance  of  its  utter¬ 
ances.  See  editorials  in  “Z.  H.,”  March  8  and  May  31,  1843. 


54  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

Other  conventions  took  equally  radical  ground. 
At  the  New  Market,  (Lamprey  River),  N.  H.,  meeting, 
held  March  8  and  9,  1843,  it  was  emphatically  declared 
that  in  order  to  prevent  the  entire  dissolution  of  the 
Methodist  Church  in  New  England,  complete  separa¬ 
tion  from  the  South  and  slavery  was  necessary;  and 
they  planned  petitions  to  the  next  General  Conference 
asking  either  the  formal  division  of  the  North  from 
the  South  along  the  line  separating  the  slaveholding 
from  the  free  states,  or  that  the  northeastern  anti¬ 
slavery  conferences  be  set  off  by  themselves.  82 

These  meetings  produced  great  excitement  in  the 
church  and  the  slaveholder  was  denounced  with  all 
the  vigor  of  the  early  days.  There  is  abundant  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  influence  of  these  movements  on  the 
church.  83  It  is  significant  that  the  strict  episcopal  ad- 


82  The  official  proceedings  of  the  New  Market  Convention 
appear  in  “Z.  H.,”  March  29,  1843. 

There  was  also  a  lively  convention  at  Hallowell,  Me.,  Feb.  22 
and  23,  1843.  See  “Z.  H.,”  March  15,  1843,  where  the  proceedings  and 
“Address”  are  given.  There  is  also  a  letter  by  M.  Hill  on  this  con¬ 
vention  in  “Z.  H.,”  April  12,  1843. 

For  a  convention  held  at  Claremont,  N.  H.,  March  28,  1843,  see 
“Z.  H.,”  March  15  and  April  19,  1843.  The  latter  copies  an  account 
from  the  “Claremont  National  Eagle.” 

On  the  conventions  see  also  “Autobiography  of  Luther  Lee,”  ch. 
XXIX.  From  April  19  to  July  5  inclusive  every  issue  of  “Z.  H.” 
gives  space  to  the  conventions  or  the  secessions. 

83  That  the  troubles  of  the  church  would  have  become  over¬ 
whelming  without  the  secession  of  the  Scottites  is  likely  but  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  secessions  as  the  events  exerting  a  deciding  in¬ 
fluence  on  the  schism  of  1844  is  freely  recognized  in  contemporary 
and  later  writings.  The  secessions  greatly  stimulated  the  anti¬ 
slavery  feeling  among  those  who  maintained  their  allegiance  to  the 
old  church.  The  editor  of  “The  Richmond  Christian  Advocate”  (to  be 
referred  to  as  “R.  C.  A.”)  recognized  the  jeers  and  jibes  of  the 
Scottites  as  a  cause  of  the  calling  of  radical  conventions  in  New 
England.  Issue  of  Dec.  28,  1843. 

A  reviewer  (Matlack  says  it  was  Dr.  Whedon)  writing  in  “The 
Quarterly  Review”  expressed  himself  in  no  uncertain  terms :  “We 
honor  and  love  those  men,”  he  said.  “Their  secession,  as  we  believe, 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


55 


ministration  in  the  sessions  of  the  annual  conferences 
was  relaxed,  no  84  form  of  anti-slavery  expression  being 
any  longer  objected  to  there;  and  that  “Zion’s  Herald’’ 
again  took  up  the  cudgels  as  of  old.  At  the  same  time 
other  events  were  influencing  moderate  anti-slavery 
men  to  co-operate  more  freely  with  the  abolitionists  re¬ 
maining  within  the  church.  Not  the  least  of  these  was 
the  Slaveholders’  Convention  which  forced  upon  the 
attention  of  the  country  the  more  aggressive  pro-slavery 
attitude  of  the  South.  The  convention  had  sat  Jan.  12- 
14,  1842,  at  Annapolis,  Md.,  and  had  recommended  to 
the  state  legislature  a  long  list  of  amendments  to  the 
slave  laws,  one  effect  of  which  would  have  been  to 
make  more  miserable  the  lot  of  the  free  negro.  Many 
colored  Methodists  would  have  been  affected,  and  when 
a  bill  embodying  the  convention’s  recommendations 
passed  the  lower  house  of  the  Maryland  legislature, 
Dr.  Bond  of  “The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  did 
valiant  service  in  procuring  its  defeat  in  the  Senate. 
This  pro-slavery  plan  aroused  his  ire,  and  for  a  time  it 
looked  as  if  the  columns  of  the  great  official  paper 


saved  our  Church  in  1844  from  accepting  a  slaveholding  bishop.” 
“Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  Oct.  1865,  612. 

Matlack  reports  a  conversation  between  himself  and  Bishop 
Thomson,  in  1866,  in  which  the  bishop  assented  heartily  to  the  view 
that  by  leaving  as  they  did,  the  Wesleyans  “constrained  a  develop¬ 
ment  of  anti-slavery  activity  within  the  ‘old  church,’  which  they  could 
not  have  accomplished  by  remaining  members  of  it.”  “Anti-Slavery 
Struggle,”  144. 

Dr.  James  Porter  in  his  “Compendium”  (p.  185),  referring  to  the 
Plan  of  Separation  and  the  situation  at  the  Conference  of  1844  said, 
“Our  choice  was  between  having  a  slaveholding  bishop,  the  transfer 
of  our  churches  to  Wesleyanism,  so-called,  or  a  general  New  England 
secession....”  He  thus  appreciated  the  influence  which  the  radical 
secession  had  exerted  on  many  who  did  not  actually  secede,  but  who, 
nevertheless  insisted  on  a  more  definite  anti-slavery  policy  on  the 
part  of  the  church. 

84  This  was  increasingly  true  even  before  secession  had  begun. 
See  O.  Scott’s  letter  in  “Z.  H.,”  June  15,  1842. 


56  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

might  be  pried  open  to  anti-slavery  discussions.  In  his 
righteous  wrath  Dr.  Bond  promised  that  since  the 
slaveholders  themselves  had  removed  the  ban  from  sub¬ 
jects  hitherto  thought  surpassingly  dangerous,  he 
would  “discuss  them  to  the  heart’s  content  of  the 
Slaveholders’  convention.” 85  Other  editorials  fol¬ 
lowed  in  which  Dr.  Bond  adopted  a  modified  anti¬ 
slavery  tone.  He  objected  to  the  new  southern  radical¬ 
ism,  which  was  as  dangerous  in  his  eyes  as  that  of 
abolitionism,  a  radicalism  which  insisted  not  merely 
that  slavery  must  be  endured,  but  that  it  must  be 
purposely  propagated.  This  he  could  not  countenance.86 

The  new  position  of  the  conservative  editor  of  ‘  ‘  The 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  naturally  alarmed 
the  South.  Press  and  conferences  began  protesting 
against  it.  87  Dr.  Wightman  of  “The  Southern  Christian 
Advocate”88  reviewed  the  whole  affair  with  special 
reference  to  the  new  attitude  of  the  New  York  paper, 
and  he  concluded  that  Dr.  Bond’s  change  of  view 
represented  the  feeling  of  that  section  of  church  opinion 
which  would  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the  coming 
General  Conference,  (1844)  ;  that  it  registered  an 
ominous  growth  of  the  sentiment  that  slaveholding 
was  sinful.  89 

The  southern  editor  was  only  partly  right.  While 
it  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  anti-slavery  feeling  was 
increasing  in  the  North  thanks  partly  to  the  Wesleyan 
secession,  Dr.  Bond  had  no  intention  of  going  over  to 


85  61  “Niles  Register,”  58,  322-23,  356-58  ;  “C.  A.  and  J.”  March 
9,  1842. 

86  “C.  A.  and  .1.,”  Aug.  30,  1843. 

87  See  a  typical  set  of  resolutions  in  “Ibid.” 

88  Referred  to  hereafter  as  “S.  C.  A.” 

S9  Matlack,  “Anti-Slavery  Struggle,”  154. 


AGITATIONS  AND  SECESSIONS 


57 


Scottism.  His  outburst  over  the  Slaveholders’  Con¬ 
vention  was  but  temporary,  and  he  hastened  to  reassure 
the  South  of  his  safety  and  sanity.  He  admitted  that 
his  remarks  had  been  rash  and  misleading.  His  policy 
was  to  remain  the  same  as  of  old.  90 

This,  then,  was  the  situation:  The  northern  seces¬ 
sion  had  brought  confusion  and  fear  to  that  section  of 
the  church ;  pro-slavery  radicalism,  created  in  part 
perhaps,  by  the  denunciations  of  the  abolitionists,  had 
aroused  the  moderates  and  pushed  them  in  the  direction 
of  the  radical  position.  The  South  feared  for  her  dis¬ 
ciplinary  rights,  and  all  far-seeing  lovers  of  Methodism 
were  trembling  for  the  unity  of  the  church.  Truly 
the  General  Conference,  now  but  a  few  months  off, 
would  face  vast  problems  and  disquieting  possibilities. 


90  Commenting  a  little  earlier  on  southern  opposition  to  his 
supposed  new  policy,  Editor  Bond  had  said,  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  April  20, 
1842)  :  “They  infer... “The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  is  to 
assume  a  new  position  in  the  Church,  and  is  hereafter  to  open  its 
columns  for  the  discussion  of... slavery  and  abolition.  We  assure 
them  that  we  meant  no  such  thing”.  “We  do  not  intend  to  depart 
from  the  editorial  course  which,  as  we  have  said,  we  consider  pre¬ 
scribed  to  us  by  the  Church”. 


Chapter  III 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 

The  outstanding  facts  in  the  situation  just  prior 
to  the  fateful  Conference  of  1844  were  the  increased 
radicalism  of  both  the  abolitionists  and  the  southern 
partisans  and  the  shifting  of  the  moderates  toward  the 
position  of  the  former. 1  There  was  every  sort  of 
speculation  in  the  church  as  to  what  might  happen  at 
the  Conference.  Some  saw  the  real  meaning  of  the 
problem  and  feared  the  worst;  others  felt  that,  since 
the  firebrands  of  New  England  had  seceded,  a  quiet  and 
harmonious  session  might  be  anticipated.  Still  a  third 
class,  while  alive  to  the  seriousness  of  the  crisis,  main¬ 
tained  an  optimistic  feeling  and  vigorously  repelled  the 
bare  suggestion  that  schism  was  a  possibility.  2  In 
general  it  may  be  said  that  the  approaching  meeting 
was  awaited  with  anxiety  not  only  by  the  church  but 
to  some  extent  by  the  whole  country.  The  slavery 
issue  was  prominent  enough  in  1844,  through  the  agi¬ 
tation  of  Texan  annexation  and  otherwise  to  make  any 
controversy  involving  it  a  matter  of  general  interest. 


1  This  situation  corresponded  rather  closely  with  that  confront¬ 
ing  the  nation  in  1860,  politically  speaking,  although  by  that  time 
the  abolitionists  had  ceased  to  be  an  effective  force  and  their  place 
was  taken  by  the  so-called  anti-slavery  men. 

Strange  to  say  the  real  fighters  in  the  Conference  of  1844  were 
neither  pro-slavery  men  nor  abolitionists,  but  moderate  anti-slavery 
men. 

2  In  “Z.  H.,”  May  1,  1844,  the  editor  expressed  his  amusement 
at  the  thought  that  unity  was  at  stake. 

The  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  1,  1844,  had  no  “foreboding.”  “We 
confidently  look  for  a  peaceable,  harmonious,  and  eminently  useful 
session”. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


59 


The  Conference  met  in  the  Green  Street  church, 
New  York  City,  May  1.  There  were  180  delegates  from 
the  thirty-three  annual  conferences.  3  A  gathering  of 
nearly  two  hundred  Methodist  preachers  made  rather 
a  striking  appearance.  Few  young  men  were  elected 
to  the  General  Conferences.  The  body  was  composed  in 
part  of  men  in  the  prime  of  life,  at  the  high  water  mark 
of  intellect  and  eloquence  and,  perhaps  in  greater  part, 
of  hoary-headed,  venerable  appearing  men  who  had 
given  their  best  years  to  the  cause.  4  Naturally  the 
Conference  included  most  of  the  leaders  of  mid-century 
Methodism.  There  was  Dr.  Stephen  Olin  of  the  New 
York  conference  who  had  lived  both  North  and  South, 
and  who  more  fully  perhaps  than  anyone  else  under¬ 
stood  and  sympathized  with  both  sections.  He  saw 
vividly  the  difficulties  that  threatened  his  beloved 
church.  At  this  time  he  was  president  of  Wesleyan 
University,  at  Middletown,  Connecticut.  There  was 
Nathan  Bangs,  a  conservative  Connecticut  Yankee — 
editor,  teacher,  pastor,  missionary  enthusiast,  and 
historian  of  the  church ;  Peter  Cartwright,  the  pictur¬ 
esque  backwoods  preacher  from  Illinois  whose  “Auto¬ 
biography”  is  a  frontier  classic;  and  Charles  Elliott, 
who  had  entered  the  ministry  in  his  native  Ireland  and 
had  come  to  America  to  play  a  prominent  part  as 
editor  and  preacher.  He  became  the  historian  of  the 
great  schism.  These  men  represented  the  moderate 
party  in  the  Conference.  From  New  England  came 
the  abolitionists  James  Porter  and  Phineas  Crandall. 
From  the  South  came  Henry  Bascom  of  Kentucky, 


3  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  3-5.  Volume  II.  contains  the  “Jour¬ 
nals”  of  1840  and  1844  and  the  “Debates”  of  1844,  each  part  being 
separately  paged.  See  map  for  the  names  and  boundaries  of  the  annual 
conferences  as  geographical  nnits. 

4  The  reporters  for  the  “New  York  Tribune”  were  much  im¬ 
pressed  with  this  appearance  of  wisdom,  kindliness  and  venerability 
in  the  Conference.  “Weekly  Tribune,”  May  4,  1844. 


60  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

friend  of  Henry  Clay,  5  peerless  pulpit  orator  and  con¬ 
fidant  of  southern  statesmen;  William  Winans  of  Mis¬ 
sissippi  ;  the  rugged  Capers  of  South  Carolina  who 
“spoke  in  Italics  and  wore  no  cravat;”  6  and  the  brace 
of  Pierces,  father  and  son,  of  Georgia;  George  F.,  the 
younger,  destined  to  be  a  bishop  in  the  southern  Metho¬ 
dist  church,  and  both  prominent  champions  of  their 
section  in  1844.  Last  to  be  mentioned,  but  by  no 
means  least,  was  William  A.  Smith  of  Virginia,  the 
versatile  stickler  for  the  letter  of  the  church  constitu¬ 
tion,  exactly  typical  of  the  theories  of  his  section, 
political  and  otherwise,  one  of  the  most  powerful  men 
in  the  Conference.  7 

No  sooner  was  the  simple  work  of  organization 
completed  than  the  burning  issue  of  slavery  arose.  Peti¬ 
tions  to  deal  with  the  slave  question  and  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  committee  on  slavery  8  brought  it  up  incident¬ 
ally.  It  thrust  itself  right  into  the  center  of  the  stage, 
however,  when  the  Harding  appeal  from  a  decision  of 
the  Baltimore  conference  was  presented. 

Mr.  Harding  was  a  traveling  preacher  who  had 
been  suspended  by  his  conference  for  refusing  to  free 


5  Henkle,  “Life  of  Bascom,”  105-106. 

6  McTyeire,  “Hist,  of  Methodism,”  624  ;  Smith,  “Life  of  Bishop 
Andrew,”  125. 

7.  Thirteen  of  the  members  subsequently  became  bishops.  Alex¬ 
ander,  “Hist,  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,”  15. 

8  Dr.  Capers  objected  to  these  discussions  of  the  subject  from 
General  Conference  to  General  Conference  as  though  it  were  a  proper 
matter  for  legislation.  Mr.  Collins  of  the  Baltimore  conference,  (by 
geography  and  otherwise  a  moderate)  on  the  other  hand,  thought  it 
would  make  matters  worse  and  increase  the  agitation  if  the  subject 
were  not  taken  up.  It  must  be  managed  so  as  to  create  the  least 
excitement  possible. 

A  committee  was  appointed  whose  subsequent  report  showed 
petitions  from  nine  annual  conferences  and  others  from  the  people, 
containing  in  all  10,000  signatures.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  13,  112; 
“Debates,”  5,  6. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


61 


some  slaves  obtained  by  marriage.  Now  he  appealed 
to  the  General  Conference  to  reverse  that  decision  and 
restore  him  to  his  old  place.  The  case  was  taken  np 
with  Mr.  Collins  as  counsel  for  the  Baltimore  con¬ 
ference  while  W.  A.  Smith  appeared  for  the  plaintiff. 
The  General  Conference  acted  as  judge  and  jury. 
Several  days  or  parts  of  days  were  occupied  in  reaching 
a  decision.  9 

The  debate  rambled  widely,  involving  the  whole 
slavery  issue  and  the  policy  of  the  church.  It  was 
urged  in  Mr.  Harding’s  behalf  that  under  Maryland 
law  he  did  not  own  the  slaves  at  all,  that  they  belonged 
to  his  wife ;  that,  under  the  same  law,  if  he  had  owned 
them,  he  could  not  legally  have  emancipated  them. 
Thus  he  claimed  protection  under  that  rule  of  Discipline 
which  exempts  from  the  emancipation  clause  those  liv¬ 
ing  in  states  where  it  would  be  illegal  to  emancipate. 
The  resolution  passed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1840  was  also  referred  to  as  favoring  him  since  accord¬ 
ing  to  that  action  ownership  of  slaves  was  not  a  bar 
to  any  official  grade  in  the  church.  In  opposition,  it 
was  contended  by  the  Baltimore  conference  that  Mary¬ 
land  did  practically  permit  manumission  of  slaves  for 
they  could  go  to  Africa  or  to  the  free  states  and  that 
there  was  no  provision  for  returning  them  to  servitude. 
It  was  pointed  out  also  that  the  disciplinary  rule  apply¬ 
ing  to  traveling  preachers  was  more  severe  than  that 
applying  to  local  preachers  or  private  members,  and 
that  nothing  was  said  against  freedmen  being 
allowed  to  enjoy  their  freedom.  A  colleague  of  Mr. 
Collins  supplemented  his  remarks  with  the  statement 
that  slaves  were  constantly  being  set  free  in  the  state.10 


9  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  23;  “Debates,”  18. 

10  “Debates,”  19,  22,  31,  32,  33,  41. 


62  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

After  extended  debate  in  which  several  other  mem¬ 
bers  took  part,  the  Conference  voted  overwhelmingly 
against  reversing  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  con¬ 
ference.  11 

The  significant  fact  in  the  trial  and  decision  of 
this  appeal  was  that  it  revealed  the  inevitable  clash 
between  the  two  irreconcilable  views  on  slavery  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  Conference.  It  was  this  larger  issue 
which  they  were  actually  debating,  while  the  Harding 
affair  was  merely  the  temporary  focus.  Harding  had 
become  a  slaveholder  with  his  eyes  wide  open.  He 
could  probably  have  freed  the  slaves  had  he  so  desired. 
The  point  was  that  neither  he  nor  his  friends  thought 
his  acts  morally  wrong  or  ecclesiastically  illegal.  The 
decision  showed  unmistakably  to  the  southerners  what 
they  had  more  than  suspected  already,  that  their 
opponents  were  in  an  overwhelming  majority  in  the 
Conference  and  that  they  were  disposed  to  use  their 
power.  The  antagonistic  parties  stood  clearly  revealed 
to  each  other.  One  delegate  expressed  his  opinion  on 
the  situation  thus :  ‘  ‘  The  great  question  of  unity  is 
settled,  division  is  inevitable.”  12  Others  also  saw  and 
were  grieved. 13 


11  The  vote  stood  56  to  117,  and  the  chair’s  subsequent  decis¬ 
ion  that  this  virtually  confirmed  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  conference 
was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  111  to  53.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  33,  34. 

12  G.  F.  Pierce,  “Debates,”  110.  Myer’s,  “Disruption  of 
Episcopal  Methodism,”  42.  Myers  asserts  that  the  Harding  case 
presented  a  question  of  similar  import  to  the  later  Andrew  case, 
which  was  already  looming  up  before  the  Conference,  and  that  it 
had  been  debated  and  decided  with  that  case  constantly  in  view.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  relation  of  Bishop  Andrew  to  slavery,  i.  e.,  that 
he  was  a  slaveholder,  was  generally  known  in  the  Conference  from 
the  first. 

13  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  23,  1844.  In  his  editorial  correspondence 
from  the  seat  of  the  Conference,  Mr.  Lee  said  :  “The  decision  in  this 
case  [Harding’s]  is  a  virtual  declaration  of  the  opinion  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  that  slaveholding  constitutes  a  disqualification  for 


♦ 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE  63 

This  desperate  situation  could  not  but  call  out 
some  attempt  on  the  part  of  loyal  Methodists  to  save 
the  church.  A  committee  of  six  was  appointed  to  con¬ 
fer  with  the  bishops  and  if  possible,  report  some  plan 
for  permanent  pacification.  It  was  also  determined  to 
observe  the  next  day  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer 
before  God  for  his  blessing  on  the  efforts  of  the  com¬ 
mittee.  14  While  these  measures  were  pending  some 
speeches  were  made  which  admirably  expressed  not 
only  the  dilemma  in  which  the  Conference  found  itself 
but  also  the  spirit  of  the  occasion.  Dr.  Olin,  whose 
fitness  for  such  a  task  we  have  already  noticed,  arose 
and  under  the  mellowing  influences  of  that  sad  hour 
spoke  in  a  strain  of  tenderness  that  moved  the  whole 
body.  We  can  not  do  better  than  to  quote  from  his 
speech. 15  “He  had  feared  for  these  two  or  three  days 
that,  though  possibly  they  might  escape  the  disasters 
that  threatened  them,  it  was  not  probable.  He  had 
seen  the  cloud  gathering,  so  dark  that  it  seemed  to  him 
there  was  no  hope  left  for  them  unless  God  should  give 
them  hope.  It  might  be  from  his  relation  to  both  ex¬ 
tremities,  that,  inferior  as  might  be  his  means  of  form- 


the  ministerial  office.  It  is  regarded  here  as  the  knell  of  division 
and  disunion.”  “There  is  no  unkindness,  no  anger,  in  the  body.”  He 
hoped  that  unity  would  still  somehow  be  maintained. 

Dr.  Capers  wrote  mournfully  in  “The  Southern  Christian  Advo¬ 
cate,”  May  24,  that  he  knew  not  which  way  to  turn.  The  secession 
of  Scott,  Sunderland  and  others  had  led  the  church  to  lean  to  the 
radicals  in  order  to  keep  them  loyal.  “It  is  not  worth  while  to  split 
the  hair  which  divides  the  present  ‘conservatives,’  as  they  call  them¬ 
selves,  from  the  abolitionists  of  a  few  years  ago.  Anything  short  of 
the  most  rabid  and  fanatical  abolitionism  is  called  conservative.” 

14  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  42-43.  The  preamble  hit  the  nail 
on  the  head.  “In  view  of  the  distracting  agitation  which  has  so 
long  prevailed  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  and  especially 
the  difficulties  under  which  we  labor  in  the  present  General  Conference, 
on  account  of  the  relative  position  of  our  brethren  North  and  South  on 
this  perplexing  question...”  etc.  Drs.  Olin  and  Capers  were  the 
authors. 

15  “Debates,”  55. 


64  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

ing  conclusions  on  other  topics,  he  had  some  advantages 
on  this;  and  from  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
feelings  of  his  brethren  in  the  work,  he  saw  little  ground 
of  encouragement  to  hope.  It  appears  to  me,”  16  he 
continued,  “that  we  stand  committed  on  this  question 
by  our  principles  and  views  of  policy,  and  neither  of 
us  dare  move  a  step  from  our  position.  Let  us  keep 
away  from  the  controversy  until  brethren  from  opposite 
sides  have  come  together.  I  confess  I  turn  away  from 
it  with  sorrow,  and  a  deep  feeling  of  apprehension  that 
the  difficulties  that  are  upon  us  now  threaten  to  he 
unmanageable.  I  feel  it  in  my  heart,  and  never  felt  on 
any  subject  as  I  do  on  this. ...  I  do  not  see  how  north¬ 
ern  men  can  yield  their  ground,  or  southern  men  give 
up  theirs.  I  do  indeed  believe,  that  if  our  affairs  re¬ 
main  in  the  present  position,  and  this  General  Con¬ 
ference  do  not  speak  out  clearly  and  distinctly  on  the 
subject,  however  unpalatable  it  may  be,  we  cannot  go 
home  under  this  distracting  question  without  a  cer¬ 
tainty  of  breaking  up  our  conferences.  I  have  been 
to  eight  or  ten  of  the  northern  conferences,  and  spoken 
freely  with  men  of  every  class,  and  firmly  believe  that, 
with  the  fewest  exceptions,  they  are  influenced  by  the 
most  ardent  and  the  strongest  desire  to  maintain  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church ....  The  men  who  stand  here 
as  abolitionists  are  as  ardently  attached  to  Methodist 
episcopacy  as  you  all....  Your  northern  brethren, 
who  seem  to  you  to  be  arrayed  in  a  hostile  attitude, 
have  suffered  a  great  deal  before  they  have  taken  their 
position,  and  they  come  up  here  distressed  beyond 
measure,  and  disposed,  if  they  believed  they  could, 
without  destruction  and  ruin  to  the  church  to  make 
concession. ...  I  look  to  this  measure  with  desire 


16  This  change  back  and  forth  from  direct  to  indirect  discourse 
appears  in  the  speech  as  reported  in  the  “Debates.” 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


65 


rather  than  with  hope.  With  regard  to  our  southern 
brethren ...  if  they  concede  what  the  northern  brethren 
wish — if  they  concede  that  holding  slaves  is  incompat¬ 
ible  with  holding  their  ministry — they  may  as  well  go  to 
the  Rocky  Mountains  as  to  their  own  sunny  plains.  The 
people  would  not  bear  it.  They  feel  shut  up  to  their 
principles  on  this  point. . . .  But  if  our  difficulties  are 
unmanageable,  let  our  spirit  be  right.  If  we  must  part, 
let  us  meet  and  pour  out  our  tears  together ;  and  let  us 
not  give  up  until  we  have  tried. ...  I  can  not  speak 
on  this  subject  without  deep  emotion.  If  we  push  our 
principles  so  far  as  to  break  up  the  connection,  this 
may  be  the  last  time  we  meet.  I  fear  it !  I  fear  it !  I 
see  no  way  of  escape.” 

Without  a  vigorous  use  of  the  imagination,  we  can¬ 
not  picture  to  ourselves  today  the  scene  in  the  Green 
Street  church  when  Dr.  Olin  sat  down.  It  was  typical 
of  a  great  religious  assembly.  The  deep  emotion,  the 
tears,  the  subdued  chorus  of  amens  suggest  only  an  im¬ 
perfect  picture  of  the  occasion.  In  a  sense  the  spirit 
of  this  speech  lived  through  the  whole  Conference,  and 
showed  victoriously  in  the  famous,  if  illfated,  Plan  of 
Separation.  Other  speakers  followed  in  much  the  same 
strain.  The  dominant  note  was  dread  and  deprecation 
of  division. 17 


17  Dr.  Smith  said  that  the  South  certainly  did  not  desire 
division.  “What,  sir,  divide !  Never !”  Nor  did  he  agree  that  civil 
war,  as  has  been  intimated,  was  likely  to  come  upon  them.  He  had 
no  fear  of  civil  disunion  and  war.  . . . 

“No  sir.  .  .  .  We  have  higher  and  more  appropriate  reasons  for 
wishing  to  preserve  our  long  cherished  union.  The  days  for  civil 
war  in  this  country  have  gone  by.”  “Debates,”  57,  144. 

Just  a  little  later  L.  M.  Lee,  editor  of  the  “R.  C.  A.,”  preached 
for  a  friend  at  Norwalk,  Conn.,  and  had  a  chance  to  learn  how  people 
there  felt.  His  letter  to  his  paper  showed  that  he  had  received  con¬ 
siderable  light.  He  realized  how  difficult  the  situation  was  for  the 
northern  Methodists.  He  wrote:  “But  this  question  [Bishop  Andrew] 


66  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

The  committee  on  pacification  worked  for  four 
days.  At  its  instance  separate  caucuses  of  the  north¬ 
ern  and  southern  delegates  were  held  to  see  what  could 
be  done.  At  last,  all  efforts  at  settlement  proving  fu¬ 
tile,  the  committee  reported  its  failure  to  the  Con¬ 
ference.  18 

Terrible  as  was  the  situation  exposed  by  such  a 
report  from  such  a  committee,  the  Conference  had  yet 
to  face  its  most  trying  ordeal.  Rumors,  current  even 
before  the  opening  of  the  sessions,  had  developed  into 
a  general  understanding  that  slavery  had  invaded  the 
episcopacy — that  Bishop  Andrew  was  a  slaveholder. 19 
May  20  a  resolution  was  passed  directing  the  committee 
on  episcopacy  to  investigate  the  rumors  and  report  the 
next  day.  20  This  was  the  first  official  notice  taken  of 
the  disturbing  stories. 

The  question  of  a  slaveholding  episcopacy  was  not 
a  new  one  in  the  church.  It  had  been  discussed  with 


involves  more  than  the  South  may  at  first  perceive.  It  is  not  so 
much  an  effort  to  injure  or  oppress  Methodism  at  the  South,  as  it  is 
to  preserve  its  life  at  the  North.  The  truth  is  Northern  Methodism 
stands  on  the  crater  of  a  heaving  volcano.  .  .  .  Our  Northern  brethren 
are  exposed  to  evils  that  justly  entitle  them  to  the  commiseration  and 
sympathy  of  the  South.  If  they  do  not  do  some  great  thing  to 
rid  the  Church  of  all  connexion  with  slavery  why  then  their  people 
will  do  a  great  thing  to  rid  themselves  of  all  connexion  with  the 
Church.  Secessions,  divisions,  strifes  innumerable  and  uncontrollable 
as  a  summer  storm  stare  them  in  the  face.  .  .  .  But  what  a  dilemma 
for  good  men  to  be  in.  If  they  move  forward  they  destroy  the  unity 
of  the  Church  ;  if  they  sit  still  they  destroy  themselves.”  “R.  C.  A.,” 
May  30,  1844. 

18  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  54. 

19  There  is  a  very  brief  outline  of  Andrew's  career  in  Simpson. 
“Cyclopaedia  of  Methodism,”  fifth  revised  edition,  36-37.  See  also 
Smith,  “Life  of  Andrew.”  James  O.  Andrew  was  born  in  Georgia  in 
1794,  was  licensed  to  preach  in  his  nineteenth  year,  and  joined  the 
South  Carolina  conference  in  1812.  Until  1832  he  was  busy  with  his 
duties  as  pastor  and  presiding  elder,  and  in  that  year  was  elected 
bishop. 

20  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  58. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


67 


increasing  interest  as  the  differences  on  slavery  deep¬ 
ened.  21  The  North  believed  that  it  was  contrary  to 
usage  to  elect  a  slaveholder  bishop,  while  the  South 
held  that  it  was  not  contrary  to  usage,  but  that  it 
merely  had  never  occurred.  22  Owing  partly  perhaps 
to  his  modesty,  Bishop  Andrew  had  never  felt  quite  at 
home  in  his  elevated  position.  This  feeling  combined 
with  poor  health  and  the  worry  of  enforced  absence 
from  his  motherless  children  had  led  him  more  than 
once  to  contemplate  resigning.  23  In  January,  1844, 
he  had  married  a  lady  who  owned  a  few  family  slaves, 
and  the  fact  became  known  in  the  church.  Having 
reached  Baltimore  on  his  way  to  the  Conference,  he  had 
been  surprised  to  find  that  his  connection  with  slavery 
had  caused  great  excitement,  and  that  his  affairs 
would  probably  be  investigated. 24  Allowing  his 
natural  inclinations,  irrespective  of  the  slavery  issue, 
to  rule,  Bishop  Andrew  had  resolved  to  resign,  think¬ 
ing  thus  to  allay  excitement  and  prevent  a  dangerous 
and  protracted  Conference  debate.  Before  putting  his 
resolution  into  effect  he  had  decided  to  lay  the  whole 
matter  before  the  southern  delegates,  as  his  proposed 
course  would  directly  affect  them.  He  had  arranged  a 
meeting  and  had  asked  for  their  candid  opinion. 25 
This  had  occurred  on  May  10,  ten  days  before  any 


21  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  20,  1843,  Oct.  9,  1844  ;  “Z.  H.,”  Oct. 
25,  1843  ;  Myers,  “Disruption,”  32-34  ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  26,  1843. 

22  There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that  Bishop  Andrew  got  some 
votes  in  1832  on  account  of  his  freedom  from  connection  with  slavery. 
On  the  other  hand  his  moderation  in  the  dominating  controversy  of 
that  time  between  the  High  and  Low  church  parties,  also  won  him 
many  votes.  It  was  believed  he  would  be  a  peace-maker.  Smith. 
“Life  of  Andrew,”  229-30. 

23  Smith,  “Andrew,”  324-325. 

24  “Ibid.,”  340.  The  rumor  had  caused  consternation  in  New 
York.  It  appears  that  Dr.  Bond  had  discussed  the  matter  with  Bishop 
Soule  there  before  the  Conference  met.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  June  11,  1845. 

25  Letter  of  Bishop  Andrew  in  “S.  C.  A.,”  copied  into  “R.  C. 
A.,”  Sept.  12,  1844. 


68  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

official  action  had  been  taken  by  the  Conference.  The 
southerners  had  requested  the  bishop  not  to  resign.  20 
A  committee  from  the  caucus  had  informed  Bishop  An¬ 
drew  of  its  action  and  had  assured  him  that  resignation 
would  probably  lead  to  a  secession  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  southern  churches.  He  had  then  promised  that 
he  would  not  resign. 

When  the  delegates  from  the  northern  conferences 
met  pursuant  to  the  call  of  the  committee  on  pacifica¬ 
tion,  they  also  had  taken  up  informally  the  bishop’s 
case.  A  committee  of  five  had  been  appointed  to  have 
a  friendly  interview  with  him  to  learn  his  views  and 
feelings  and  ascertain  if  mutual  steps  might  not  be 
taken  to  avoid  a  general,  public  debate.  Dr.  Bangs  had 
headed  this  committee  and  had  attempted  to  make  clear 
to  the  bishop  the  feeling  of  the  North  regarding  a 
slave  holding  episcopacy.  Bishop  Andrew  had  refused 
to  communicate  with  the  committee  except  in  writing 
and  the  committee  in  turn  had  declined  to  confer  with 
him  in  writing  on  the  ground  that  their  errand  was 
purely  informal  and  fraternal.  They  had  left  his 
quarters  deeply  grieved  and  mortified.  27  Bishop  An¬ 
drew’s  view  of  this  meeting  was  slightly  different. 
He  felt  that  the  northern  delegates  were  conspiring  to 
deal  with  him  as  the  offender  who  had  brought  all 
these  calamities  upon  them.  He  felt  that  they  were  his 
enemies  and  that  it  would  be  unsafe  to  confer  with 


26  They  set  forth  by  resolution  the  facts,  and  requested  him 
“by  all  his  love  for  the  unity  of  the  Church,  which  his  resignation 
will  certainly  jeopardize,  not  to  allow  himself  for  any  consideration 
to  resign.”  Smith,  “Life  of  Andrew,”  341-43 ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  23, 
Sept.  12,  1844. 

27  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  column  295.  See  “Western  Chris¬ 
tian  Advocate,”  (referred  to  hereafter  as  “W.  C.  A.”)  Oct.  25,  1844. 
for  comment  on  Bishop  Andrew’s  having  put  himself  under  the  con¬ 
trol  of  “the  mistaken  portion  of  the  Church.” 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


69 


them  secretly  and  orally.  28  So  far  negotiations  con¬ 
ducted  by  private,  unofficial  parties  29  have  been  con¬ 
sidered,  but  official  action  was  coming.  The  Con¬ 
ference  committee  on  episcopacy  had  interested  itself  in 
the  case  almost  immediately  upon  appointment.  A 
sub-committee,  headed  by  Mr.  Crandall,  a  New  England 
abolitionist,  had  had  a  talk  with  Bishop  Andrew,  May 
8,  and  on  the  following  day  he  had  appeared  before 
the  full  committee  and  made  a  complete  statement.  30 
It  was  learned  that  he  had  a  mulatto  girl,  who  had  been 
bequeathed  to  him  in  trust,  31  and  a  negro  boy  left  to 
him  from  the  estate  of  his  former  wife.  32  His  second 
wife  had  a  few  family  slaves  from  the  estate  of  her  first 
husband  and  these  Bishop  Andrew  had  secured  to  her 
by  a  deed  of  trust.  33 

Thus  when  the  mandate  of  the  Conference  came  to 
the  committee  on  episcopacy  to  investigate  Bishop 
Andrew’s  affairs,  it  had  already  done  so  and  was  pre¬ 
pared  to  place  the  facts  before  the  Conference.  When 
they  were  duly  presented  Griffith  and  Davis  offered  a 


28  See  the  letter  noted  above  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  12,  1844. 

29  Sincere  attempts  appear  to  have  been  made  by  the 
northern  delegates  to  get  the  difficulty  removed  by  compromise  or 
otherwise.  One  scheme  was  to  buy  the  slaves  of  the  Andrew  family. 
It  was  promised  that  if  consent  to  such  a  course  were  given  the  money 
would  be  ready  within  forty-eight  hours.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  June  11, 
1845. 

30  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  12,  1844. 

31  She  had  been  left  by  an  old  lady  of  Augusta,  Ga.  The  bishop 
was  to  care  for  the  girl  until  she  was  nineteen,  when  he  must  send 
her  to  Liberia,  if  she  would  go,  and  if  not  he  must  make  her  as  free 
as  the  local  laws  allowed.  She  had  refused  to  leave  the  country  so 
was  living  in  her  own  house  on  his  lot.  She  was  of  no  pecuniary 
benefit  to  him  and  was  at  liberty  to  go  to  a  free  state  whenever  she 
pleased.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  63;  Smith,  “Andrew,”  311-13. 

32  This  boy  was  given  to  Bishop  Andrew’s  wife  by  her  mother. 
It  was  illegal  to  emancipate  him  but  he  was  free  to  go  North  as  soon 
as  he  was  able  to  care  for  himself.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  63-64. 

33  “Ibid.  ;”  Smith,  “Andrew,”  336-38. 


70  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


preamble  and  resolutions,  stating  that  a  bishop  em¬ 
barrassed  by  connection  with  slavery  could  not  serve 
acceptably  in  all  parts  of  the  church ;  that  it  was  a 
very  inopportune  time  to  allow  such  an  innovation ;  and 
proposing  that  Bishop  Andrew  be  affectionately  re¬ 
quested  to  resign.  34 

As  we  have  seen  the  southern  delegates  had  em¬ 
phatically  objected  to  his  resignation ;  but  now,  in  the 
interests  of  the  North,  that  resignation  if  this  resolu¬ 
tion  passed,  was  to  be  officially  requested.  Apparently 
resignation  was  the  big  issue.  Why  did  not  the  Bishop 
voluntarily  resign?  Why  was  he  willing  to  be  the 
occasion  of  a  protracted  and  disastrous  debate?  He 
lias  been  most  severely  criticized  for  refusing  to  act 
upon  his  first  impulses.  35  There  was  an  evident  dis¬ 
position  to  think  that  holding  the  key  to  the  situation 
he  refused  to  say  the  word  that  would  have  meant  peace 
and  unity.  Did  he  hold  the  key?  There  were  really 
two  questions  in  one  here.  In  view  of  his  position, 
was  he  to  blame  for  connecting  himself  with  slavery ; 
and  would  his  resignation  during  the  sessions  of  the 
Conference  have  solved  the  great  issue  confronting  the 
church?  A  very  sympathetic  critic,  Gross  Alexander, 
answers  the  first  question  in  the  affirmative,  36  and  his 


34  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  64. 

35  See  the  indictment  drawn  up  against  him  by  Abel  Stevens  in 
“Z.  H.,”  Oct.  0,  1844  :  “On  that  one  man,  we  repeat  it.  rests  the  chief 
responsibility  of  our  deplorable  condition.  A  word  from  that  man 
in  the  outset  could  have  forestalled  all  dangerous  excitement  and 
saved  the  Church,  but  clothed  in  the  highest  power  of  the  most 
responsible  religious  body  on  this  continent,  that  man  sat  day  after 
day,  week  after  week  amidst  the  anxious  consultations,  the  tears  and 
prayers  of  his  brethren.  .  .and  refused  the  only  word  that  could  have 
spoken  peace  to  the  palpitating  heart  of  the  church,  and  now  it  is 
broken  and  must  bleed.” 

See  further  for  the  idea  that  resignation  wTould  have  solved  the 
problem,  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  29,  July  31,  Sept.  25,  1844. 

36  “Hist,  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,”  20. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


71 


biographer,  37  a  strong  southerner,  is  willing  to  say  that 
if  the  bishop  had  reason  to  suppose  that  the  results  that 
did  follow,  would  follow,  his  marriage  should  have  been 
preceded  by  resignation.  Mr.  Alexander  believes, 
further,  that  if  Bishop  Andrew  did  not  know  the  situ¬ 
ation  in  the  church  well  enough  to  surmise  that  his 
connection  with  slavery  would  cause  trouble,  his  ignor¬ 
ance  was  inexcusable.  38  We  feel  inclined  to  agree 
with  these  judgments.  With  the  second  question  it 
was  different.  The  opinions,  quoted  from  northern 
sources,  39  to  the  effect  that  he  could  have  allayed  the 
excitement  with  a  word,  viewed  the  problem  too  ex¬ 
clusively  from  one  side.  We  must  keep  in  mind  the 
situation  on  both  sides.  True,  if  he  had  resigned,  his 
word  would  have  calmed  the  North  and  insured  peace 
there,  but  what  about  the  South?  It  would  have 
appeared  to  the  South  that  the  resignation  had  been 
forced  by  abolition  agitation,  and  immediate  division 
would  most  likely  have  followed.  40  This  we  may  infer 
from  a  study  of  the  resolution  asking  him  not  to  resign, 
keeping  in  mind  the  intensity  of  feeling  already  en¬ 
gendered.  One  other  thing  should  be  noted  also  in 
any  discussion  of  Bishop  Andrew’s  responsibility:  that 
from  his  own  personal  point  of  view  resignation  would 
have  been  the  most  welcome  course.  41  How  much  it 


37  Smith,  “Andrew,”  338-39. 

38  “Hist,  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,”  20. 

39  Above  p.  70.  n. 

40  Neither  is  it  certain  that  after  his  second  marriage  and  be¬ 
fore  the  General  Conference,  resignation  would  have  avoided  the 
crash. 

41  In  a  letter  to  his  daughter,  (May  14),  after  recounting  the 
events  of  the  session  that  touched  himself,  he  said  :  “I  would  most 
joyfully  resign,  if  I  did  not  dread  the  influence  on  the  Southern 
Church.”  Smith,  “Andrew,”  355. 

In  a  letter  to  his  wife  two  days  later,  after  referring  to  the  pro¬ 
test  of  the  South  against  his  resigning,  he  said  :  “and  for  the  sake 


72  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

would  have  saved  his  feelings !  He  was  able  to  endure 
those  harrowing  debates  only  by  the  conviction  that  his 
course  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  South,  and  that  he  had 
its  support — moral,  religious  and  political.  From  this 
point  of  view  he  was  a  hero,  suffering  for  a  cause,  and 
the  South  looked  upon  him  as  such.  The  problem  for 
Bishop  Andrew  is  not  half  appreciated  so  long  as  we 
think  of  it  as  a  personal  one.  Obviously  it  was  more 
than  that.  His  course  seemed  marked  out  for  him  by 
disagreeable  duty.  42 

Let  us  return  to  our  narrative.  The  Griffith  and 
Davis  resolution  and  a  substitute  presented  later, 
occupied  the  chief  attention  of  the  Conference  for  the 
greater  part  of  eleven  days,  43  and  the  officially  re¬ 
ported  speeches  fill  about  a  hundred  very  closely 
printed  pages.  Moved  by  the  force  of  the  criticism 


of  that  Church  I  have  resolved  to  maintain  my  position  and  await  the 
issue - ”  “Ibid.,”  356-57. 

His  statement  to  the  southern  delegates  when  he  promised  them 
that  he  would  not  resign  voiced  this  same  note  of  personal  suffering 
to  be  endured  for  others.  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  12,  1844,  copied  from 
“S.  C.  A.” 

The  feeling  in  the  South  is  amply  evidenced  in  those  resolutions 
passed  with  so  near  an  approach  to  unanimity  by  conferences  and 
primary  meetings  after  the  General  Conference.  The  Virginia  con¬ 
ference  said,  for  example:  “Bishop  Andrew,  therefore.  .. has  taken 
a  noble  stand  upon  the  platform  of  constitutional  law,  in  defence  of 
the  Episcopal  Office  and  the  rights  of  the  South,  which  entitles  him 
to  the  cordial  approbation  and  support  of  every  friend  of  the  Church.” 
“Hist.  Organiz.  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,”  141.  (Referred  to  here¬ 
after  as  “Official  History.”) 

42  An  incidental  controversy  growing  out  of  this  question  of 
Bishop  Andrew’s  resignation,  and  typical  of  so  many  similar  by¬ 
products  of  the  bitterness  of  this  unfortunate  conflict,  raged  around 
the  alleged  advice  of  Dr.  Bond,  verbally  given  to  Andrew,  that  he 
resign.  Dr.  Bond  said  he  never  so  advised  him.  Luther  Lee  and 
W.  A.  Smith  each  alleged  that  Dr.  Bond  did  and  that  Dr.  Bond  him¬ 
self  had  told  them  of  it.  The  fact  was  that  Dr.  Bond  advised  him 
indirectly  through  friends  and  through  the  press,  but  not  personally. 
A  tempest  in  a  tea-pot  arose  out  of  this  incident.  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  11, 
Aug.  15,  Sept.  12,  1844  ;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  31,  1844. 

43  May  22  to  June  1. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


73 


levelled  at  certain  features  of  the  original  resolution, 
Mr.  Finley  offered  a  milder  substitute.  44  Instead  of 
asking  the  bishop  to  resign,  it  requested  him  to  desist 
from  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions  as  long  as 
his  connection  with  slavery  continued.  45 

It  is  out  of  the  question  within  our  space  to  attempt 
any  detailed  account  of  the  prolix  debates. 46  We 
shall  content  ourselves  with  a  brief  summary  of  the 
primary  arguments,  all  of  which  recurred  again  and 
again.  Naturally  the  real  issue — the  attitude  of  the 
two  sections  toward  slavery — dropped  into  the  back¬ 
ground,  and  the  legal,  constitutional  and  practical  as¬ 
pects  of  the  immediate  problem — the  position  of  Bishop 
Andrew — came  to  the  front.  Three  phases  of  the 
legal  and  constitutional  issues  were  prominent,  namely, 
the  relation  of  the  bishops  to  the  Conference,  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Discipline,  and  the  nature  of  the  con¬ 
stitutional  47  effect  of  the  rules  about  slavery.  The 
southerners  held  that  the  bishop  was  beyond  any  such 


44  It  ran  as  follows :  “Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  church 
forbids  the  doing  of  anything  calculated  to  destroy  our  itinerant  gen¬ 
eral  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has  become  con¬ 
nected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having 
drawn  after  itself  circumstances  which  in  the  estimation  of  the  General 
Conference  will  greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an 
itinerant  general  Superintendent,  if  not  in  some  places  entirely  pre¬ 
vent  it ;  therefore,  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Con¬ 
ference  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this 
impediment  remains.”  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  65-66.  (May  23). 

45  Evidence  crops  out  from  time  to  time  that  vigorous  efforts 
were  continually  making  to  reach  a  compromise.  Sometimes  it  is  shown 
by  the  rather  common  accident  that  a  controversy  was  stirred  up, 
the  lie  given  and  a  newspaper  war  precipitated.  About  the  time  the 
Finley  substitute  was  introduced,  one  such  arose,  which  incidentally 
showed  that  the  idea  of  buying  the  bishop’s  slaves  was  still  alive.  “It. 
C.  A.,”  Oct.  3,  Oct.  17,  1844  ;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  9,  Oct.  30,  Dec.  4, 
1844,  and  June  11,  1845. 

46  There  is  a  useful  summary  of  the  debates  in  Buckley,  “Hist, 
of  Methodism  in  the  U.  S.”  (Am.  Church  Hist.,  Vol.  V.),  416-38. 

47  Church  constitution. 


74  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

interference  as  the  Conference  contemplated,  that  the 
episcopacy  was  a  body  co-ordinate  with  the  Conference, 
and  they  subscribed  to  the  theory  “Once  a  bishop, 
always  a  bishop.  ”  Their  opponents  held  that  the 
bishop  was  a  mere  officer  of  the  Conference  and  was 
therefore  amenable  to  it  in  every  respect.  The  South 
adopted  the  strict  constructionist  view  of  the  Discipline, 
declaring  that  the  bishop  had  violated  no  rule,  that 
his  connection  with  slavery  was  perfectly  legitimate 
under  the  resolution  of  1840  which  practically  legalized 
slaveholding  in  all  grades  of  the  ministry.  The  North 
replied  that  the  silence  of  the  Discipline  was  no  argu¬ 
ment  against  dealing  with  him  and  that  the  general 
phrase  “improper  conduct”  appearing  in  the  Discipline 
gave  a  basis  for  the  proposed  action.  It  was  pointed  out 
that  if  he  had  married  a  colored  woman  he  would  have 
been  as  unacceptable  to  the  South  as  he  was  now  to  the 
North,  and  just  as  incapable  of  performing  the  duties 
of  a  bishop,  yet  he  would  not  have  violated  the  letter  of 
the  Discipline.  Some  of  the  southern  brethren, 
especially  W.  A.  Smith,  were  inclined  to  see  in  the  con¬ 
stitution  of  the  church  a  document  instituting  a  govern¬ 
ment  similar  to  the  national  government,  a  compact 
among  the  annual  conferences,  a  government  of  enumer¬ 
ated  powers,  a  compromise  between  the  sections  on 
slavery  adopted  after  a  protracted  struggle.  This  view 
the  North  denied  absolutely,  claiming  that  the  so-called 
constitutional  contract  consisted  of  mere  rules,  change¬ 
able  in  a  few  minutes  by  vote  of  Conference. 

Finally,  there  was  the  more  practical  argument 
that  it  was  not  a  matter  of  law  at  all  but  of  expediency. 
Here  the  Conference  struck  close  to  the  fundamental 
deadlock  underlying  the  whole  quarrel.  We  have  seen 
it  before.  The  North  said  that  if  the  bishop  retained 
office,  the  church  in  that  section  would  be  broken,  per- 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


75 


haps  destroyed.  Bishop  Andrew  could  never  preside 
there.  To  this  the  South  replied  with  equal  truth  that 
to  depose  him  and  admit  that  slaveholding  disqualified 
a  man  for  an  episcopal  or  any  ministerial  position  in  the 
connection  would  work  untold  disaster  in  that  section. 
If  one  alternative  would  ruin  the  North,  the  other 
would  wreck  the  South.  In  brief,  the  southern  dele¬ 
gates  felt  that  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  was  on  their 
side  and  that  the  northern  majority  was  acting  in  an 
extra-legal  and  high-handed  manner.  There  is  a 
striking  parallelism,  as  regards  the  fundamental  issue, 
between  the  situation  in  the  church  in  1844,  and  that  in 
the  nation  half  a  generation  later.  In  the  church  the 
northern  Methodists  were  opposing  the  extension  of 
slavery  to  an  office  hitherto  free  from  it  and  with 
the  strict  law  perhaps  against  them,  and  just  before 
the  Civil  War  we  had  the  Republicans  opposing  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  territory  hitherto  free,  with  the 
law  again  perhaps  actually  on  the  side  of  the  South. 

As  the  two  weeks’  debate  dragged  on,  it  still 
further  illustrated  the  dilemma  the  church  was  in. 
Before  unity  was  absolutely  given  up  a  final,  brave 
struggle  was  made  to  reach  a  compromise.  On  the 
morning  of  May  30  Bishop  Hedding  suggested  that  no 
afternoon  session  be  held,  in  order  to  give  the  bishops 
time  to  consult  together  and  if  possible,  adjust  mat¬ 
ters.  48  The  great  debate  was  suspended  until  the 
next  day  when  Bishop  Waugh  presented  the  results  of 
the  episcopal  conference.  49  Their  proposal  was  to 
postpone  the  whole  question  until  1848.  They  felt  the 
danger  of  any  present  action.  A  decision  either  way 
would  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  church 


48  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  74. 

49  A  consultation  of  all  the  bishops  except  Bishop  Andrew. 


76  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

somewhere.  Bishop  Andrew’s  embarrassment  might 
be  removed  before  the  next  Conference.  They  con¬ 
cluded  their  report  with  the  hope  that  the  novelty  of 
their  suggestion  might  be  excused  by  the  seriousness 
of  the  crisis.  50  This  proposal  later  provoked  a  violent 
attack  from  a  northern  partisan  who  also  pounced  up¬ 
on  Bishop  Soule,  the  alleged  author  of  the  idea.  51  The 
suggestion  was  referred  to  a  committee  for  further  con¬ 
sideration.  52  Soon  after  the  plan  was  given  to  the 
Conference  Bishop  Hedding  had  an  interview  with 
the  New  England  delegates  which  exerted  a  decisive 
influence  on  subsequent  events. 

There  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  seriousness  of  the 
situation  in  New  England.  Abundant  evidence  on  that 
score  has  been  presented.  Where  then  were  the  aboli¬ 
tionist  delegates,  and  what  were  they  doing?  We  have 
heard  practically  nothing  of  them  so  far.  Were  they 
too  discouraged  to  take  part,  too  few  to  count,  or  too 
indifferent  to  the  future  of  the  church  to  care?  Not  at 
all.  They  were  very  much  interested  and  were  numer¬ 
ous  and  influential  enough  to  play  an  important  role. 
But  they  were  not  needed  in  the  open  fight.  Their 
work  was  being  done  in  the  present  Conference  by 
their  erstwhile  enemies,  the  old  conservatives.  The 
situation  that  had  developed,  in  part  through  the  Scot- 
tite  secession,  had  driven  the  conservatives  and  the 
abolitionists  into  practical  harmony.  An  incident  is 


50  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  75-76. 

51  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  308.  This  partisan  was  Elliott 
himself  who  said  in  part :  “But  Bishop  Soule’s  new-fangled  course, 
without  Discipline,  without  precedent,  but  contrary  to  all  usage,  rule, 
justice,  right  and  prudence,  to  send  a  circular  to  the  societies  and 
conferences  with  the  facts,  and  thus  appeal  to  the  multitude,  and, 
therefore,  produce  general  agitation,  exceeds  anything  the  world  ever 
yet  saw  in  the  annals  of  ecclesiastical  matter .  .  .  .  ”  and  so  on  in  the 
same  vein. 

52  “Debates,”  185-186. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


77 


related  which,  while  none  too  well  authenticated,  per¬ 
haps,  fits  admirably  into  the  situation.  During  the 
Conference  a  southern  member  asked  an  abolitionist 
why  he  and  his  brethren  had  so  little  to  say.  “Oh!” 
he  replied,  “we  have  nothing  to  do  now.  The  Balti¬ 
more  Conference  is  doing  our  work  for  us.  And  they 
will  get  all  the  odium;  and  we  all  the  benefit.”  53 

In  order  to  understand  the  interview  between 
Bishop  Hedding  and  the  New  Englanders  we  must  go 
back  a  little.  One  who  took  part  in  these  proceedings 
recalls  some  of  the  secret  history  of  the  time.  On 
reaching  New  York  the  day  before  the  Conference 
opened,  this  man,  James  Porter,  an  abolitionist  dele¬ 
gate  from  the  northeast,  had  been  invited  to  a  private 
interview  with  a  prominent  representative  of  the  con¬ 
servative  party,  54  and  asked  what  New  England 
wanted.  In  reply  he  had  demanded,  in  order  that  the 
Methodists  in  that  quarter  might  preserve  their  peace 
and  unity,  that  Bishop  Andrew  free  himself  from 
slavery  or  resign,  that  the  Baltimore  conference  be  sus¬ 
tained  in  the  Harding  case,  and  that  the  resolution  of 
the  previous  Conference,  against  allowing  colored  testi¬ 
mony  in  church  cases  involving  whites,  be  rescinded.55 
He  had  added  that  they  wanted  action  of  a  more  pro  ¬ 
nounced  anti-slavery  character  but  could  hardly  expect 
it  under  existing  circumstances.  He  had  thought  that 
if  this  program  were  carried  out  New  England  Metho¬ 
dism  could  maintain  itself,  although  not  without  some 
losses.  His  conservative  friend  had  assured  him  that 


53  “R.  C.  A.,”  June  26,  1845. 

54  A  member  of  the  Baltimore  annual  conference,  probably  Mr. 
Collins. 

55  He  also  demanded  that  abusive  language  against  abolitionists 
should  cease. 


78  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


his  demands  were  reasonable  and  would  command  the 
support  of  the  Baltimore  delegation.  At  a  later  meet¬ 
ing  other  conservatives  had  committed  themselves  to 
this  tentative  bargain.  It  had  been  at  the  same  time 
agreed  that  because  of  the  prejudice  against  the  radi¬ 
cals,  the  conservatives  should  take  the  “laboring  oar” 
and  allow  the  former  to  play  an  inconspicuous  part. 
This  plan  was  for  the  most  part  carried  out  and  in¬ 
cidentally  explains  the  inactivity  of  the  New  Eng¬ 
landers.  56 

During  the  debates  on  the  Harding  and  Andrew 
cases  the  abolitionists  had  been  conspicuously  silent. 
Everything  had  been  going  to  their  satisfaction. 
Orange  Scott,  looking  down  from  the  visitors’  gallery, 
must  have  been  stirred  to  the  depths  of  his  heart  to  see 
his  cause  championed  by  men  who  had  been  his  bitterest 
enemies.  All  had  gone  well  until  about  May  30,  when 
the  proposal  had  been  made  to  postpone  the  whole 
Andrew  question  and  omit  the  afternoon  session  to 
allow  a  consultation  of  the  bishops.  This  had  broken 
up  the  composure  of  the  abolitionists.  They  had  im¬ 
mediately  convened  and  unanimously  adopted  a  minute 
declaring  it  to  be  their  solemn  conviction  that  if  the 
bishop  were  left  in  office,  it  would  break  up  the  New 
England  churches,  and  that  their  only  recourse  would 
be  to  secede.  This  view  had  been  concurred  in  by  some 
prominent  laymen  present,  and  a  committee  had  been 
appointed  to  make  known  their  action  to  Bishop  Hed- 
ding  before  he  should  meet  his  colleagues  that  after- 


56  James  Porter,  “General  Conference  of  1844,”  in  “The  Metho¬ 
dist  Quart.  Rev.,”  April,  1871,  242. 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  article  was  written  twenty-seven 
years  after  the  event.  But  as  its  explanation  fits  admirably  into  the 
situation  and  is  apparently  accepted  by  one  side  and  uncontradicted 
by  the  other,  we  have  regarded  it  as  true. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


79 


noon.  Too  much  time  had  been  consumed  at  the  meet¬ 
ing  and  they  had  failed  to  see  him.  Next  morning,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  episcopacy  reported  unanimously  in 
favor  of  postponement.  A  belated  consultation  was 
had  with  Hedding,  at  which  he  was  fully  appraised  of 
the  action  of  the  New  England  caucus.  57  He  was  con¬ 
vinced  of  the  justice  of  their  demand,  expressed  his 
regret  at  not  having  seen  them  before  signing  the 
episcopal  report,  and  promised  to  go  into  Conference 
and  withdraw  his  name  from  the  report  advising  post¬ 
ponement.  This  he  did  at  once.  Under  rather  dra¬ 
matic  circumstances,  with  all  the  bishops  on  the  plat¬ 
form,  he  arose  and  asked  permission  to  withdraw  his 
name.  58  He  was  allowed  to  do  so.  The  other  bishops 
let  their  names  stay  attached  to  the  document  as  a 
testimony  to  their  efforts  for  peace,  even  if  those 
efforts  failed.  The  bishops  being  no  longer  unani¬ 
mous,  Dr.  Bangs  moved  that  the  communication 
be  laid  on  the  table.  The  ayes  and  noes  were  called 
for  and  the  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  95  to  84.  59 
Two  unsuccessful  attempts  were  made  later  to  get  post¬ 
ponement  and  these  caused  the  abolitionists  momentary 
anxiety.  60 


57  Matlack,  “Amer.  Slav.  &  Meth.,”  appendix  3 ;  Clark,  “Life 
of  Hedding,”  592  ;  “Meth.  Quart.  Rev.,”  April,  1871,  246-47. 

58  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  81;  “Debates,”  188.  He  explained 
that  he  had  signed  the  report  as  a  peace  measure,  and  in  the  belief 
that  it  would  be  generally  accepted.  In  this  he  found  he  was  dis¬ 
appointed,  so  desired  to  withdraw  his  name. 

59  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  82-83.  In  the  “Debates”  of  1844, 
(188-89),  the  vote  is  erroneously  given  as  95  to  83. 

60  First,  an  attempt  was  made  to  combine  the  bishops’  plan 
with  a  mild  resolution  regretting  Bishop  Andrew’s  connection  with 
slavery,  and  requesting  him  to  rid  himself  of  it  as  soon  as  possible. 
“Debates,”  189.  Secondly,  a  little  later,  resolutions  were  introduced 
stating  it  to  be  the  sense  of  the  Conference  that  its  action  against 
the  bishop  was  not  judicial  but  only  advisory,  and  putting  off  final 
action  until  1848.  “Debates,”  192  ;  “Meth.  Quart.  Rev.,”  April,  1871, 
247. 


80  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


The  episcopal  suggestion  of  postponement  em¬ 
bodied  the  last  faint  hope  of  unity,  and  the  abolitionists 
in  self-defence  had  effectively  blocked  it.  Postpone¬ 
ment  was  generally  satisfactory  to  the  southerners,  G1 
and  many  others.  If  adopted  it  probably  would  have 
satisfied  them.  Had  the  bishops  remained  unanimous, 
it  undoubtedly  would  have  been  adopted,  62  and  they 
would  have  remained  unanimous  but  for  New  England. 
Secession  and  fear  were  rife  in  that  section,  its  dele¬ 
gates  reflected  that  fear,  and  a  different  direction  was 
given  to  the  course  of  events.  63 

This  proved  to  be  the  turning  point  of  the  Con¬ 
ference.  The  Finley  substitute  now  passed  rapidly  to  a 
vote.  Amid  the  profoundest  silence  the  roll  was  called. 
The  result  showed  111  yeas  to  60  nays.  The  resolution, 
asking  Bishop  Andrew  to  desist  from  his  episcopal 
labors  while  connected  with  slavery,  had  passed  by  an 
enormous  majority.  Analysis  shows  that  110  of  the 
affirmative  votes  came  from  the  non-slaveholding  con¬ 
ferences,  and  only  one  from  the  others ;  04  while  52  of 
the  negative  votes  came  from  the  latter  and  17  from  the 


61  “Debates,”  189.  Dr.  Winans  remarked  that,  “the  southern 
delegates  were  of  one  mind  to  entertain  the  proposals  of  the  super¬ 
intendents.” 

62  A  change  of  six  votes  would  have  resulted  in  its  adoption. 

63  So  says  Matlack,  “Am  Slav,  and  Meth.,”  appendix,  4.  In  the 

\ 

main  it  is  true.  Looking  at  this  episode  in  the  life  of  this  fateful 
Conference  as  the  actual  occasion  of  the  defeat  of  postponement,  it  is 
interesting  and  important,  even  crucial,  but  we  must  be  careful  not 
to  overestimate  events  which,  while  actually  crucial,  would  in  their 
absence  have  left  t*he  ultimate  outcome  unchanged.  The  schism  was 
inevitable  before  May  30  ;  as  a  matter  of  history  the  New  Englanders 
blocked  the  last  plan  that  offered  hope  of  peace.  That  is  all  they  did. 

64  The  other  conferences  (slaveholding)  were  Ky.,  Ilolston, 
Tenn.,  Mo.,  Memphis,  Ark.,  Tex.,  Miss.,  Ala.,  Ga.,  N.  C.,  S.  C.,  and  Va. 
The  lone  vote  for  the  resolution  from  the  slaveholding  conferences 
was  that  of  John  Clark  of  Texas,  and  he  was  a  northern  transfer, 
lie  was  born  in  New  York  State.  Hall,  “Life  of  Clark,”  19,  224-30  ; 
“Journals,”  II.  (1844),  83-84. 


DIVISION  BECOMES  INEVITABLE 


81 


former.  No  sooner  was  the  Finley  substitute  passed 
than  the  minority  gave  notice  that  they  would  enter 
a  solemn  protest.  It  was  read  June  6,  and  while  con¬ 
taining  little  not  found  in  the  ‘  ‘  Debates,  ’  ’  forms  a  con¬ 
venient  summary  of  the  southern  case.  65  Four  days 
later  the  North  read  a  reply  to  the  protest  which  ably 
summed  up  the  case  from  that  point  of  view.  66 

The  Conference  and  the  church  now  stood  squarely 
at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  Everything  had  been  done 
that  could  be  done  to  preserve  unity.  Confronted  no 
longer  by  the  haunting  shadow  of  division  but  by 
division  itself,  unable  longer  to  avoid  dealing  directly 
with  it,  what  would  the  representatives  of  American 
Methodism  do? 


65  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  appendix  Doc.  II,  186-98. 

66  “Ibid.,”  113  and  appendix  Doc.  K,  199-210.  Mr.  Crowder,  a 
southerner,  i-emarked  that  he  would  not  be  surprised  if  it  lead  to 
war.  Great  excitement  was  reported  at  the  South. 


Chapter  IV 


THE  PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  AND  THE  ESTAB¬ 
LISHMENT  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 

CHURCH,  SOUTH 

By  a  chain  of  circumstances  over  which  neither 
party  had  much  control  the  northern  section  of  the 
church  found  itself  master  of  the  situation  in  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  and  the  southern  section  found  itself 
defeated  and  helpless.  Obviously,  continued  union  was 
out  of  the  question.  Would  the  victors  attempt  to  sad¬ 
dle  the  whole  burden  of  the  common  woes  on  the  van¬ 
quished?  Would  they  say  coldly:  we  could  not  agree; 
in  the  contest  the  North  won;  you  must  either  accept 
your  defeat  in  silence,  or  go  out  as  seceders  leaving  us 
the  name  and  prestige  and  the  property  we  have  all 
worked  unitedly  to  build  up  ?  It  is  to  the  credit  of  the 
Methodists  of  that  day  that  the  best  ideals  of  their  Chris¬ 
tianity  prevailed  in  such  a  crisis.  In  a  sense  the  spirit 
of  Stephen  Olin’s  speech  still  lived.  They  recognized, 
in  effect,  that  neither  side  was  entirely  to  blame.  There 
was  no  desire  to  follow  any  but  a  mild  and  equitable 
policy.  Indeed,  so  far  did  this  spirit  prevail  in  the  final 
proceedings,  that  it  may  well  appear  that  too  much  was 
conceded  to  the  southern  desire  for  ecclesiastical  inde¬ 
pendence.  Perhaps  they  erred  nobly  on  the  side  of 
too  great  self-sacrifice. 

Dr.  Capers  brought  the  issue  into  tangible  form 
June  3  1  by  the  introduction  of  a  set  of  resolutions 
looking  toward  partial  separation.  He  would  provide 


1  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  86,  87. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


83 


for  two  General  Conferences  instead  of  one,  with  the 
line  dividing  the  free  from  the  slave  states  as  their 
geographical  boundary.  The  two  conferences  were  to 
be  equal  and  co-ordinate ;  foreign  mission  interests,  and 
the  Book  Concerns, — the  great  denominational  publish¬ 
ing  houses, — were  still  to  be  carried  on  in  common. 
The  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  Committee  of 
Nine.2  The  northerners  on  the  committee  deemed  it 
impossible  to  get  sufficient  votes  in  the  annual  con¬ 
ferences  to  authorize  such  a  change.  3  A  more  serious 
objection,  if  possible,  was  their  feeling  that,  constituted 
as  the  committee  and  the  Conference  were,  with  a  big 
northern  majority  in  each,  it  would  be  inappropriate  for 
them  to  originate  any  divisive  measure  before  it  was 
definitely  demanded  by  the  South.  Dr.  Capers  4  says 
that  Mr.  Hamlin  proposed  the  form  of  their  report,  and 
the  convening  of  the  southern  delegations  to  memorial¬ 
ize  the  General  Conference  in  favor  of  division.  When 
such  a  petition  should  be  received  and  referred  to  a 
committee,  a  plan  of  separation  should  follow.  The 
first  Committee  of  Nine  unanimously  accepted  these 
suggestions  and  reported  verbally  June  5,  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  that  it  had  found  no  plan  which  would 
be  generally  acceptable.  5 

Whether  or  not  Dr.  Capers  is  correct  in  his  recol¬ 
lections,  the  course  he  says  was  proposed  was  actually 


2  “Ibid.,”  90.  The  committee  members  were,  Capers,  Winans, 
Crowder,  Porter,  Filmore,  Akers,  Hamlin,  Davis  and  Sandford. 

3  The  North  also  objected  to  partial  separation.  If  it  must 
come  at  all  it  must  be  complete. 

4  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Nine. 

5  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  103. 

For  some  light  on  the  inner  history  of  this  first  Committee  of 
Nine  see  :  Capers’  letters  in  “S.  C.  A.,”  June  21,  1844,  and  Mar.  28,  1845  ; 
letter  of  Dr.  Payne  to  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  25,  1844,  copied  into  “R. 
C.  A.,”  Nov.  14,  1844. 


84  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

pursued.  The  southern  delegates  met  and  were  told 
that  if  they  really  wanted  division  they  must  ask  for 
it.  6  A  caucus  committee  7  was  appointed  to  draw  up 
the  necessary  declaration.  The  committee  at  first 
clung  to  the  idea  of  a  partial  division,  but  were  over¬ 
ruled  by  the  caucus,  and  the  famous  declaration  finally 
presented  was  substituted. 8  On  the  same  day 
that  the  old  Committee  of  Nine  reported  its  failure,  Dr. 
Longstreet  presented  this  document  to  the  Conference. 
It  is  simply  a  statement  that  the  action  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  in  the  Bishop  Andrew  case  rendered  a  continu¬ 
ation  of  its  jurisdiction  over  the  southern  conferences 
inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  there.  It 
was  signed  by  the  delegates  from  the  South  and  was  al¬ 
most  immediately  referred  to  a  second  Committee  of 
Nine.  9  This  committee  was  instructed  by  the  General 
Conference  if  unable  to  compose  the  differences  other¬ 
wise,  to  devise  a  constitutional  plan  for  a  friendly  divis¬ 
ion  of  the  church.  A  motion  to  exclude  the  word  consti¬ 
tutional  failed  and  the  instruction  was  allowed  to  stand 


6  It  was  a  most  doleful  session.  Fitzgerald,  “Biog.  of  J.  B. 
McFerrin,”  157. 

7  The  committee  was  Payne,  Smith  and  Longstreet.  See 
Payne’s  letter  referred  to  in  note  5  above. 

8  Payne’s  letter  as  above.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  109;  “Great 
Secession,”  814 ;  Hurst,  “History  of  Methodism,”  (American 
Methodism),  II.  941.  The  declaration  is  as  follows:  “The  delegates 
of  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states  take  leave  to  declare  to 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the 
continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  Church  ;  the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  ;  and  especially  the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against 
Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted  on  Saturday  last,  in  the  virtual  sus¬ 
pension  of  him  from  his  office  as  Superintendent,  must  produce  a 
state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  continuation  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  over  these  conferences  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  states.” 

9  This  committee  was  made  up  of  :  Payne,  Filmore,  Akers,  Bangs, 
Crowder,  Sargent,  Winans,  Hamline,  Porter.  The  italicized  names 
appeared  also  on  the  first  Committee  of  Nine. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


85 


as  introduced  by  Mr.  McFerrin.  10  The  committee 
completed  its  labors  and  presented  its  report  June  7.*  11 
This  was  the  famous  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine, 
or  as  it  is  more  commonly  called,  The  Plan  of  Sep¬ 
aration. 

While  the  plan  was  still  in  the  committee  stage, 
considerable  excitement  was  aroused  by  the  report  that 
John  C.  Calhoun  had  been  consulted  and  had  confirmed 
the  worst  predictions  of  the  southern  Methodists  as  to 
the  results,  political  and  otherwise,  of  the  Conference 
action  on  slavery. 12  There  was  some  excitement  also 
in  New  York,  the  seat  of  the  Conference;  a  mob  was 
talked  of  and  some  members  feared  an  outburst  of 
pro-slavery  feeling  that  might  force  a  reversal  of  the 
action  in  Bishop  Andrew’s  case. 13  It  was  in  the  midst 
of  these  new  anxieties  that  the  Plan  was  produced,  and 
the  feeling  of  Mr.  Porter,  of  the  committee,  may  have 
been  shared  by  others.  He  felt  that  they  had  looked 
too  complacently  on  secession,  but  he  knew  at  least 
one  member  of  the  committee  (himself?)  who  voted 
for  the  Plan  to  prevent  the  reconsideration  mentioned, 
and  consequent  secessions  in  New  England. 14  The 


10  The  history  of  these  two  Committees  of  Nine  and  the 
circumstances  surrounding  their  appointment  and  instruction,  are 
none  too  clear,  and  are  the  subject  of  controversy.  On  the  whole 
the  version  in  the  text  seems  to  fit  best  all  the  conditions.  See 
“Nashville  Christian  Advocate,”  (“N.  C.  A.”),  Oct.  2,  1846  for  one 
point  in  controversy.  McFerrin’s  letter  in  that  paper,  and  the  Con¬ 
ference  “Journal”  ought  to  settle  the  question  on  the  presence  of  the 
word  constitutional  in  the  instruction.  See  Tigert,  “Const.  History,” 
447-48n  for  the  other  controverted  point :  and  Hibbard,  “Life  of 
Hamline,”  138,  139.  Mr.  Hamline  voices  serious  opposition  to  the 
instruction  and  there  is  some  evidence  that  it  was  modified  in  Con¬ 
ference  though  the  change  did  not  get  recorded  in  the  official  “Jour¬ 
nal.”  See  also  his  remarks,  “Debates,”  223,  226. 

11  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  128. 

12  In  appendix  III.  we  have  considered  the  influence  of  Cal¬ 
houn  and  other  statesmen  on  the  Methodist  problem. 

13  “Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  April,  1871,  24S. 

14  “Ibid.” 


86  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

next  day  the  Plan  15  was  taken  up  by  the  Conference. 
Deeming  separation  a  probability  it  expressed  a  desire 
“to  meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and 
the  strictest  equity.”  The  twelve  sections  of  the  Plan 
designated  a  method  of  establishing  a  boundary  be¬ 
tween  the  two  Methodisms  in  case  separation  took 
place,  allowed  ministers  to  choose  without  blame  the 
church  to  which  they  would  adhere,  recommended  to 
the  annual  conferences  a  modification  of  the  constitu¬ 
tional  restriction  to  permit  a  division  of  the  property 
in  the  Book  Concerns,  laid  down  rules  for  the  division 
and  transfer  of  property  and  for  the  joint  use  of  exist¬ 
ing  copyrights. 

A  running  debate  developed.  Dr.  Charles  Elliott 
who  moved  to  adopt  the  Plan,  expressed  his  strong 
approval.  The  church  was  too  large,  he  said,  and  aside 
from  the  question  of  slavery,  must  divide  sooner  or 
later  for  convenience.  This  was  not  schism  but  di¬ 
vision  for  greater  mutual  prosperity.  In  later  days 
Dr.  Elliott  changed  his  mind  about  the  expediency  and 
constitutionality  of  the  Plan,  and  this  speech  often 
came  home  to  plague  him.  The  debate  showed  wide 
differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  intent  of  the  document, 
and  what  its  effects,  and  the  manner  of  its  operation, 
would  be.  Some  were  sure  it  did  not  provide  for 
division,  some  seemed  to  think  it  would  prevent  di¬ 
vision,  and  still  others,  uncertain  what  it  would  do 
were  sure  the  South  could  base  no  positive  action  on 
it  until  the  scheme  was  sanctioned  by  the  annual  con- 


15  The  plan  in  full  is  too  extensive  to  quote  in  the  text,  but 
may  be  found  in  appendix  II.  It  is  of  prime  importance  and  should 
be  studied  carefully  before  the  reader  attempts  to  understand  the 
remainder  of  this  discussion.  It  has  been  reproduced  many  times. 
See  “Journals,”  II.  (1S44),  135-37  ;  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  Doc. 
56 ;  “Official  History,”  91-93  ;  Bedford/,  “Organization,”  368-73  ; 
Buckley,  “Methodists,”  (Church  Hist.  Series),  app.  III. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


87 


ferences.  These  differences  were  prophetic  of  the 
debate  which  arose  on  the  same  points  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  church. 16  The  Plan  came 
to  a  vote  the  day  it  was  debated  and  was  accepted  by 
an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  delegates. 17  Having 
thus  given  the  South  its  Magna  Charta — so-called — the 
General  Conference  adjourned  sine  die. 18 

Long  before  final  adjournment,  the  problem  that 
had  monopolized  the  Conference  was  agitating  the 
church.  In  the  South,  particularly,  the  people  were 
going  emphatically  on  record  against  the  alleged  ty¬ 
ranny  of  the  northern  majority.  The  news  of  the  fail¬ 
ure  in  the  National  Senate  of  the  Texas  Annexation 
treaty,  and  the  whole  background  of  the  Texan  con¬ 
troversy  in  the  political  life  of  the  time  of  course  added 
to  the  fervor  of  opposition  to  the  Conference  action  in 
the  Bishop  Andrew  case.  Meetings,  both  lay  and  clerical 
were  being  held  throughout  the  slaveholding  section. 


16  Mr.  Griffith  said  he  would  oppose  it  if  he  stood  alone.  He 
denied  all  right  to  divide  the  church.  Peter  Cartwright  said  he 
would  rather  die  than  kill  the  church,  the  proposal  was  a  wicked  one. 
Let  the  discontented  ones  go.  The  door  was  open.  God  had  always 
provided  a  “trash  trap ”  to  take  the  scum  away.  He  could 
trust  Him  now.  (Later  replying  to  a  question  he  said  he  was  not 
applying  the  term  trash  trap  to  the  South).  Mr.  Filmore  said  the 
plan  simply  provided  for  a  contingency.  None  would  wish  to  with¬ 
hold  from  the  southern  brethren  a  cent  of  the  common  funds.  Dr. 
Bond,  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  body  but  had  been  granted  the 
privilege  of  the  floor,  asked  why  this  committee  had  not  adhered  to 
conference  lines  in  fixing  the  boundaries.  Allowing  a  shifting  border 
would  provoke  war  all  along  the  line — a  prophetic  remark.  Dr. 
Sandford  opposed  the  measure  since  it  invited  separation.  “Debates,” 
219-25. 

17  The  first  resolution  passed  finally  by  a  vote  of  146  to  16, 
actual  count,  allowing  for  one  change  made  at  the  General  Conference 
in  1848.  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  67.  The  second  received  139  to  17; 
the  third  146  to  10,  actual  count.  The  fifth  received  151  to  13.  The 
other  votes  are  not  reported.  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  130-35;  Tigert, 
“Const.  Hist.,”  450 ;  Myers,  “Disruption,”  99. 

18  June  11,  12  :15  A.  M. 


88 


SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Between  July  4,  1844  and  March  1,  1845,  “The  Rich¬ 
mond  Christian  Advocate”  printed  at  least  sixty-seven 
sets  of  resolutions  passed  by  such  meetings.  This 
action  was  often  unanimous  and  the  laity  appeared  to 
be  as  much  enraged  as  the  ministry.  So  wide-spread 
and  spontaneous  was  this  movement  that  it  is  dif¬ 
ficult  now  to  see  how  doubt  could  arise  whether  the 
southern  delegates  truly  represented  their  people.  Yet 
both  at  the  North  and  at  the  South  the  opinion  was  fre¬ 
quently  expressed  that  the  pernicious  activity  of  the 
other  section  was  due  to  a  conspiracy  among  a  few 
designing  leaders. 19  This  suggests  the  similar  view 
common  at  one  time,  of  the  origin  of  the  Civil  War. 
A  little  study  of  abolitionism  as  a  popular  movement, 
of  the  southern  opposition  to  it;  and  of  the  situation 
immediately  preceding  the  War  will  easily  convince 
one  that  the  conspiracy  theory  is  not  needed  to  account 
for  the  events  in  either  case. 

There  is  a  marked  similarity  of  tone  in  these 
southern  resolutions.  The  authors  eulogized  Bishops 
Soule  and  Andrew,  repudiated  the  idea  that  slavery 
is  a  moral  evil,  denounced  abolition  as  a  “foul  spirit 
of  the  pit,  whose  mildew  breath”  would  blast  the 
church  of  God.  They  demanded  a  separation  from  the 
North  in  the  interests  of  the  southern  church,  approved 
the  work  of  the  Committee  of  Nine,  thanked  the  south¬ 
ern  delegates  for  their  manly  stand  for  southern  rights, 
and,  since  “The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  was 
edited  by  an  abolitionist,  they  pledged  themselves  to 
diminish  its  circulation  in  the  South  by  all  honorable 


19  This  theory  is  suggested  in  Cartwright,  “Autobiography,*’ 
416,  436  ;  remarks  of  W.  A.  Smith,  “Debates,”  16  ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  30, 
1844;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Mar.  12,  1845,  April  8,  1846,  Jan.  13,  1847. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


89 


means.  20  Sets  of  resolutions  varied  from  one  another 
in  details,  but  as  a  rule  through  six,  eight  or  a 
dozen  articles,  ranging  from  fulsome  praise  of  friends 
to  vitriolic  denunciation  of  foes,  the  feelings  of  the 
South  were  expressed.  The  unnecessary  violence  of 
language  had  its  natural  effect  on  the  North  21  and 
was  regretted  by  the  more  sober  spirits  in  the  South.  22 
The  correspondence  from  different  parts  of  the  country 
that  formed  so  common  a  feature  of  the  old  news¬ 
papers  religious  and  secular,  is  of  some  value  as  evi¬ 
dence  of  local  feeling.  It  fully  corroborates  the 
opinion  formed  by  a  study  of  these  resolves.  2:5 

So  great  was  the  importance  attached  to  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  that  the  general  citizenship 
of  the  South  as  well  as  the  churchmen  took  an  interest 
in  it.  During  the  summer  there  was  widespread  agi¬ 
tation  for  a  southern  convention  to  consider  the  status 
of  their  “peculiar  institution”  and  to  urge  the  an¬ 
nexation  of  Texas.  Such  a  meeting  in  Alabama  24  took 
cognizance  of  the  doings  of  the  Conference.  It  de¬ 
plored  the  transfer  of  the  current  agitation  into  the 


20  See  resolutions  passed  at  a  meeting  of  several  Methodist 
congregations  in  Princess  Anne  Circuit,  Virginia,  June  22,  1844, 
“R.  C.  A.”  July  18.  1844.  For  other  sets  see  especially  “R.  C.  A.,” 
July  4,  25,  August  1,  22  and  Sept.  5,  1844. 

21  For  illustration  of  its  early  reception  at  the  North  see  “C.  A. 
and  J.,”  June  26,  1844,  where  the  editor  advised  them  to  consider 
more  gravely  and  in  the  fear  of  God  whether  there  be  necessity  for 
separation.  July  10,  he  dwelt  on  the  revengeful,  implacable  hateful 
tone,  in  the  southern  resolutions.  He  hoped  the  South  would  cool 
down  before  the  Louisville  convention  met  to  consider  the  question 
of  a  new  church. 

22  Regret  for  this  extravagant  and  unchristian  language  was 
expressed  in  the  resolutions  of  later  southern  conferences.  See 
“Official  History,”  124-27  (Missouri  conference)  ;  132-34  (Memphis 
conference)  ;  135-37  (Mississippi)  ;  137-39  (Ark.) 

23  See  for  example  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  12,  1844,  letters  of  D. 
Culbreth  and  R.  J.  Carson. 

24  In  Russell  Co.,  June  8,  1844. 


90  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

church  which  ought  to  he  sacred  to  charity,  peace  and 
goodwill.  The  members  were  indignant  at  the  sight 
of  a  Georgia  bishop  tried  as  a  culprit  for  marrying  a 
slave-owning  wife — an  insinuation  that  he  thus  became 
unfit  to  teach  the  word  of  God.  They  urged  the 
southern  Methodists  to  secede  if  the  bishop  was  de¬ 
posed,  and  promised  them  the  unalterable  support  of 
every  sect  and  denomination  in  Dixie.  25  Later  in  the 
year  the  governor  of  South  Carolina  in  his  annual  mes¬ 
sage  to  the  legislature,  referred  to  the  alleged  deposi¬ 
tion  of  Bishop  Andrew  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  telling  the  law  makers  that  the  Methodists  of 
the  South  were  entitled  to  honor  for  the  spirit  with 
which  in  reply  to  this  insult  they  had  dissolved  all  con¬ 
nection  with  their  brethren  in  the  North.  26 

This  surely  was  soil  for  the  southern  delegates  to 
grow  sentiment  for  an  independent  church.  Before 
leaving  New  York  these  men  convened  (June  11,  the 
very  day  Conference  adjourned)  to  consider  plans  for 
the  future.  This  action  they  defended  against  north¬ 
ern  criticism  on  the  ground  that  it  was  necessary  to 
prevent  ecclesiastical  anarchy  in  the  South.  A  definite 
direction  must  be  given  to  the  popular  movement  and 
a  program  of  action  worked  out.  What  concerted 
action  could  be  planned  after  these  delegates,  who  best 


25  66  “Niles  Register,”  312-13.  For  other  such  meetings  see 
“Ibid.,”  256,  288. 

At  a  Fourth  of  July  meeting  in  the  M.  E.  Church  at  Marion  C.  H., 
S.  C.,  strong  political  disunion  sentiments  were  expressed.  After 
toasting  Bishop  Soule  as  the  kind  of  soul  the  South  wanted,  other 
toasts  were  proposed.  “Texas ;  Its  speedy  annexation  at  all  and 
every  hazard.”  “Texas;  Let  us  have  her  now,  (she  has  freely  off¬ 
ered  herself)  aye  even  at  the  hazard  of  disunion.”  “Disunion — Startle 
not  at  the  sound  !  To  this  complexion  it  must  be  at  last.”  “Ibid.,” 
345-6. 

26  “Journal  of  Senate  of  S.  Carolina,”  1844,  18-19.  See  also 
appendix  III.  of  the  present  work. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


91 


of  anyone  in  their  section  knew  the  situation,  had 
scattered  to  their  homes?  Then,  too,  according  to  the 
Plan,  on  them  alone  rested  the  responsibility  of  decid¬ 
ing  on  the  necessity  for  disunion.  Was  it  not  the 
logical  thing  to  meet  and  make  plans?  The  criticism 
of  the  northern  Methodists  was  that,  having  intimated 
in  the  Conference  that  the  passage  of  the  Plan  would 
calm  the  slavery  section  and  tend  to  make  separation 
unnecessary,  the  southerners  were  now  met  in  caucus 
to  plan  a  complete  separation  from  the  old  church. 

At  this  meeting  the  southern  delegates  after  due 
deliberation  decided,  in  order  to  find  out  definitely 
what  their  constituents  wanted,  to  propose  a  convention 
which  should  meet  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  May  1,  1845.  To 
this  gathering  the  annual  conferences  should  send  dele¬ 
gates  properly  instructed  on  the  question  of  an  in¬ 
dependent  church.  These  instructions  should  as  near¬ 
ly  as  possible  reflect  the  wishes  of  the  members  as  well 
as  of  the  ministers.  27 

The  next  step  in  the  formation  of  an  independent 
church  was  the  action  taken  by  the  southern  con¬ 
ferences  on  this  question  of  the  necessity  of  dividing 
the  church.  The  Kentucky  conference  beginning  in 
September  was  the  first  to  meet.  As  its  action  was 
imitated  by  the  succeeding  conferences,  it  may  be  taken 
as  typical.  In  the  first  place  we  find  the  inevitable 
assertion  that  the  action  taken  in  the  Harding  and  An¬ 
drew  cases  was  not  warranted  by  the  Discipline.  The 
pious  hope  was  expressed  that  separation  might  yet 


27  For  copious  extracts  from  the  minutes  of  this  meeting,  see 
“R.  C.  A.,”  June  27,  1844. 

Myers  thinks  that  the  Civil  War  is  sufficient  proof  that  the 
southern  delegates  understood  the  wishes  of  their  people.  “Dis¬ 
ruption,”  92. 


92  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

be  arrested,  the  proposed  convention  was  approved, 
and  May  1  was  set  apart  as  a  day  of  prayer  and  fast¬ 
ing  for  its  guidance.  Kentucky’s  delegates  were 
instructed  to  insist  that  the  new  connection  should  not 
be  considered  as  a  secession  from  the  old  church,  but 
as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  it ;  that  no  material  change 
should  be  made  in  the  Discipline ;  and  that  if  respect 
and  security  could  not  be  obtained  for  the  rights  of 
the  South,  they  would  consider  the  separation  un¬ 
avoidable.  These  were  the  chief  items  in  the  resolu¬ 
tions  and  they  were  passed  almost  unanimously. 28 
With  little  deviation  the  other  conferences  followed 
the  lead  of  Kentucky.  Several  added  their  sincere 
regret,  as  we  have  already  noted,  at  the  violent  langu¬ 
age  used  by  some  in  the  South  and  also  at  the  radical¬ 
ism  of  the  North.  They  reiterated  their  brotherly 
love  for  the  Methodists  at  the  North.  Many  references 
were  made  to  the  unanimity  of  feeling  in  the  annual 
conferences  as  to  the  need  of  division.  This  unanimity 
was  naturally  less  noticeable  in  the  border  and  western 
regions.  Especially  in  the  mountains  of  Virginia  and 
North  and  South  Carolina  was  the  feeling  of  unity 
with,  and  love  for,  the  old  church  strong.  This  region 
had  and  still  has  a  set  of  economic,  social  and  political 
interests  separate  in  many  ways  from  the  lowlands  to 
the  east.  Slavery  was  less  profitable  in  the  hills  and 
a  distinct  cleavage  in  the  states  covering  mountain  and 
lowland  territory  was  evident.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
this  was  the  area  where  union  sentiment  revived  most 
quickly  during  the  later  months  of  the  Civil  War.  29 
The  Holston  conference  occupied  much  of  this  region. 


28  For  these  resolutions  see  “Official  History,”  109-11.  For 
the  “Address”  they  issued  to  the  membership  see  “Ibid.,”  111-24. 

29  Other  references  to  this  fact  will  appear  as  we  discuss  the 
boundary  and  property  phases  of  the  Methodist  schism. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


93 


While  strongly  30  leaning  toward  the  South  it  felt 
called  upon  to  make  one  more  effort  to  prevent 
division.  It  asked  its  neighbor  conferences  to  agree 
to  a  joint  meeting  of  a  small  number  of  delegates  (one 
from  each  annual  conference, North  and  South)  at  Louis¬ 
ville,  at  the  same  time  as  the  convention,  to  devise  a 
compromise.  It  also  requested  that  if  this  failed  a 
plan  providing  a  body  representing  each  of  the  two 
General  Conferences  be  tried,  which  should  adjust  dif¬ 
ferences  in  the  interval  of  the  quadrennial  sessions — a 
kind  of  common  executive  committee.  If  both  of 
these  plans  should  fail  the  Holston  delegates  were  to 
support  the  official  Plan  of  Separation.  31  These  well- 
meant  suggestions  met  with  no  real  response.  They 
were  significant  however,  for  the  reasons  already  men¬ 
tioned. 

The  Virginia  resolutions  appear  to  have  been 
drawn  up  with  little  dependence  upon  others.  In 
them  we  find  expressed  an  idea  that  received  con¬ 
siderable  attention  in  some  quarters  at  the  South,  name¬ 
ly,  that  the  Southern  conferences  should  not  dissolve 
connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but 
only  with  the  General  Conference.  This  sounds  like 
the  constitutional  pedantiy  of  W.  A.  Smith  who  was 
on  the  committee  to  draw  up  the  resolutions.  32  It  was 
a  position  highly  distasteful  to  the  North,  and  utterly 
unwarranted  by  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  Plan.  33  The 
first  Committee  of  Nine,  as  we  have  seen,  clearly 
repudiated  the  idea. 


30  Meeting  Oct.  9,  1844.  See  map. 

31  For  the  Holston  resolutions  and  recommendations  in  full  see 
“Official  History,”  128-29. 

32  “Official  History,”  139-41. 

33  The  Plan  contemplated  “a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,” 
“Debates,”  218. 


94  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

It  should  not  be  supposed  that  the  South  was  abso¬ 
lutely  a  unit.  There  were  discordant  notes  in  the 
chorus  of  approval.  Besides  the  border  and  mountain 
districts  already  mentioned  the  Baltimore  conference 
showed  serious  division  of  sentiment.  Elsewhere  also 
there  appeared  sporadic  cases  of  dissent,  but  compared 
with  the  vast  body  of  favorable  opinion,  when  every 
possible  allowance  has  been  made,  they  were  relatively 
insignificant.  34 

This  strong  movement  for  the  establishment  of  an 
independent  church  was  not  perceptibly  checked  by 
the  various  compromise  plans  proposed  after  the  ad¬ 
journment  of  the  General  Conference.  Methodists 
would  scarcely  have  been  typical  Americans  of  that  day 
and  generation  had  they  not  tried  their  hands  at  com¬ 
promise.  It  was  that  same  spirit  of  compromise  which 
saved  the  nation  until  nationalism  was  strong  enough 
to  care  for  itself.  35  The  annual  conferences  were  not 
the  only,  or  even  the  chief,  sources  of  these  plans.  Min¬ 
isters,  laymen  and  local  societies  or  churches  in  the 
West  and  on  the  borderland  were  anxious  to  prevent 
strife  by  preventing  schism.  A  church  at  Washington, 
D.  C.,  showing  strong  northern  sympathies  and  wishing 
to  avoid  conflicts  in  which  it  and  its  neighbors  would 
be  the  chief  sufferers,  proposed  that  a  boundary  line 
be  established  in  the  united  church  north  of  which  the 


34  For  the  division  of  sentiment  in  the  Baltimore  conference 
see  “R.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  26,  1S44,  Jan  2,  Jan.  23,  1845;  “C.  A.  and  J..” 
Feb.  12,  19,  March  5,  1845.  For  minority  activity  elsewhere  in  the 
South  see  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  April  23,  1845,  (Kentucky),  Dec.  11,  1844, 
(Alabama  and  Louisiana)  ;  “Pittsburgh  Christian  Advocate,”  (“P.  C. 
A.”),  July  9,  1845,  (Va.,)  ;  “Western  Christian  Advocate,”  (“W.  C.  A.”), 
July  11,  1845,  (Ark). 

35  These  ecclesiastical  compromisers  may  be  compared  with  the 
political  compromisers  of  1850  as  well  as  with  those  who  made  up 
the  Constitutional  Union  party  in  1860. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


95 


bishops  should  be  non-slaveholders,  while  south  of  it 
episcopal  slaveholding  might  be  permitted.  Each  side 
was  to  select  its  own  bishops,  but  otherwise  the  super¬ 
intendency  would  remain  general  as  the  rules  and  tra¬ 
ditions  of  the  church  demanded.  36 

A  correspondent  of  Bishop  Andrew’s  had  sug¬ 
gested  the  postponement  of  the  coming  convention 
at  Louisville,  to  give  the  free-state  conferences  a 
chance  to  elect  a  delegate  each  to  attend  the  conven¬ 
tion,  and  to  co-operate  with  similar  delegates  from 
the  South  in  solving  the  common  problems.  The 
results  of  this  meeting  were  to  be  submitted  to  an 
extra  General  Conference  in  1846.  37  Still  another 
suggestion  was  that  the  differences  be  referred  to 
the  English  Wesleyan  Methodist  conference  for  arbi¬ 
tration,  each  side  agreeing  beforehand  to  abide  by  the 
decision.  38  Perhaps  the  most  widely  discussed  plan, 
however,  was  one  that  appeared  at  various  times  and 
places  in  slightly  different  form,  and  consisted  of  sev¬ 
eral  elements,  according  to  which  steps  should  be  taken 
to  free  Bishop  Andrew  from  all  connection  with  slavery. 
Farther,  if  there  was  an  abolitionist  in  the  college  of 
bishops  he  should  resign ;  and  both  sides  should  agree 
that  hereafter  neither  slaveholders  nor  abolitionists 
should  be  elected  to  that  high  office.  39  Dr.  Bond 
seemed  to  find  hope  in  this  proposal.  40 


36  “R.  C.  A.,”  August  8  and  Sept.  5,  1844.  Compare  this 
curious  idea  with  Calhoun’s  later  suggestion  of  a  dual  presidency  of 
the  United  States  to  solve  this  selfsame  sectional  problem  in  the 
nation.  Calhoun,  J.  E.,  “Calhoun’s  Works,’’  I.  392. 

37  Smith,  “Andrew,”  370-71. 

38  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  March  12,  1845. 

39  A  prominent  advocate  of  this  plan  was  W.  A.  Booth  of 
Tennessee.  “N.  C.  A.,”  August  23,  1844,  quoted  in  “Great  Secession,” 
367-68. 

40  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  2,  1844.  “Upon  the  whole,  it  would 
seem  that  the  basis  of  a  safe  and  righteous  compromise  has  been  laid 


96  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

While  a  multitude  of  such  plans  was  offered,  and 
old  plans  appeared  again  and  again  in  slightly  differ¬ 
ent  dress,  they  had  no  chance  of  acceptance.  If 
received  favorably  by  one  side  they  were  inevitably 
rejected  by  the  other.  Some  rejected  on  principle 
every  form  of  compromise  suggested.41  The  South 
was  pretty  sure  the  time  had  passed,  and  New  Eng¬ 
land  opposed  compromise  because  she  was  anxious 
to  get  all  slaveholders  out  of  the  church. 42  The 
episcopal  proposal  of  postponement  for  four  years, 
made  at  the  General  Conference,  was  perhaps  the 
most  practical  and  simple  compromise  plan  offered 
during  the  entire  controversy,  and  that  had  failed. 
Doubtless  even  that  would  have  meant  but  a  respite, 
not  a  cure.  43 

Just  a  year  after  the  convening  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  the  convention  of  the  slaveholding 
conferences  met  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  to  consummate 
the  work  of  separation.  They  regarded  the  Plan  of 
Separation  as  their  Magna  Charta,  and  on  it  they 


down.  Let  the  Southern  Churches  consent  to  preserve  the  Episcopacy 
free  from  all  connection  with  slavery,  as  it  has  heretofore  been.” 
Commit  all  action  on  slavery  to  the  annual  conferences.  Buy  Mrs. 
Andrew’s  slaves. 

41.  ‘‘R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  5,  1844.  In  this  issue  Editor  Lee  said,  ‘‘Talk 

of  compromise  now !  It  is  a  mockery  of  the  tears  and  prayers  poured 
forth  so  fully  and  so  freely  in  the  Lecture  Room  of  the  Greene  Street 
Church  by  the  Southern  delegates.  ...  It  adds  another  curl  to  the 
proud  lip  of  Abolitionism  !” 

“S.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  16,  1844.  Editor  Wightman  said,  “The  time  of 
compromise  has  gone  by  forever.” 

“W.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  29,  1844.  Editor  Elliott,  while  praising  the 
friends  of  compromise  and  wishing  them  God  speed,  saw  no  hope  of 
success  for  them. 

42  “Z.  II.,”  Oct.  9,  1844,  quoted  in  “Great  Secession,”  372  ; 
“Z.  H.,”  Jan.  15,  1845 ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  13,  1845  (copied  from 
“S.  C.  A.”). 

43  For  other  material  on  compromise  at  this  time  see  also 
“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  7,  Sept.  4  and  Oct.  9,  16,  Dec.  4,  18,  1844  and 
Sept.  3,  1845;  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  5,  1844  and  Jan.  9,  1845. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


97 


built,  carrying  out  the  unmistakable  will  of  southern 
Methodism.  It  was  a  harmonious  occasion — a  real  love 
feast.  There  were  nearly  one  hundred  delegates  pres¬ 
ent  ;  and  three  bishops,  namely  Soule,  Andrew  and  Mor¬ 
ris,  attended  the  opening.  On  the  first  day  of  the 
session  they  were  asked  to  preside.  Bishops  Soule  and 
Andrew  accepted,  but  Bishop  Morris  felt  he  must  de¬ 
cline.  44  Early  in  the  session  a  Committee  on  Organiza¬ 
tion  was  appointed  to  consider  the  propriety  of  a  sep¬ 
arate  church.  The  committee  was  composed  of  two 
men  from  each  annual  conference  represented  and  upon 
it  fell  the  real  work  of  the  convention.  45  No  sooner 
had  its  work  begun  than  its  enemies  in  northern 
Methodism  began  (as  the  southerners  thought)  to  mis¬ 
represent  it.  A  reporter  for  “The  Western  Christian 
Advocate”  informed  his  paper  that  the  combat  in  the 
convention  had  commenced.  He  represented  the  leaders 
as  determined  on  division,  which  they  thought  would 
come  easily,  but  the  great  question  was  arising,  Would 
the  leaders  be  sustained  by  their  people  in  this  work?  40 
This  same  paper  learned  somehow  that  a  private  move¬ 
ment  was  on  foot  to  see  who,  in  Louisville,  favored  the 
old  church.  The  ministers  of  the  city  sent  a  memorial 
to  the  convention  calling  its  attention  to  this  allegation 
and  denying  knowledge  of  any  hostile  activity. 47 


44  “Official  History,”  169-71,  173-75.  There  is  an  extensive 
account  of  the  convention  in  68  “Niles’  Register,”  167-68,  187,  201- 
202.  See  also  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  15,  22,  29,  June  12,  1845.  In  “R.  C. 
A.”  there  are  summaries  of  the  debates. 

45  “Official  History,”  176-77.  The  chairman  of  the  committee 
was  Henry  B.  Bascom  of  Kentucky. 

46  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  22,  1845,  (editorial  correspondence  of  L.  M. 
Lee)  ;  “W.  C.  A.,”  May  9,  1845. 

47  To  be  sure  these  denials  prove  nothing  alone  but  they  are 
backed  by  the  enonnous  votes  which  the  proposals  to  sepai'ate  received 
in  the  convention  and  in  the  South  genei’ally.  Most  of  these  1‘eports 
appeared  in  the  early  days  of  the  convention. 


98  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

Other  stories  equally,  or  more  certainly,  groundless 
were  abroad. 

On  May  5  several  resolutions  were  passed  instruct¬ 
ing  the  Committee  on  Organization  on  various  points. 
One  resolution  asked  the  committee  to  inquire  if  any¬ 
thing  had  happened  within  the  year  to  make  continued 
connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  pos¬ 
sible  ;  another  suggested  leaving  the  road  open  for  a 
later  reunion  on  proper  terms ;  a  third  requested  the 
committee,  in  case  no  sign  of  the  receding  of  the  North 
from  its  position  should  appear,  to  report  in  favor  of 
renouncing  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Conference.  48  For  eight  days  this  last  proposition 
was  debated.  Old  arguments  were  dressed  up  afresh 
and  given  again  and  again.  There  was  practically  no 
opposition.  Some  delegates  thought  that  a  little  opposi¬ 
tion  would  have  been  a  helpful  diversion,  creating  a 
healthy  excitement  and  interest  in  the  body.  49  May 
13,  one  member,  fearing  that  wrong  impressions  had  al¬ 
ready  gone  out  from  the  long  debate,  asserted  that  the 
subject  had  been  sufficiently  discussed;  the  public 
would  think  the  debate  meant  wide  differences  of 
opinion  when  really  perfect  harmony  prevailed ;  and 
unless  some  delegates  from  border  conferences  wished 
to  speak  he  would  move  that  the  debate  stop. 50 


48  "Official  History,”  178-79. 

49  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  22,  1845.  The  Editor  in  his  correspondence 
to  his  paper  said,  "As  yet,  not  a  breath  of  opposition  to  separation 
or  a  doubt  of  its  absolute  necessity,  has  been  heard.  Indeed,  a  little 
opposition,  if  from  a  source  entitled  to  consideration,  would  have  the 
effect  of  producing  a  healthful  excitement  in  the  body.  .  .  .  Everything 
is  progressing  quite  harmoniously,  and  with  regular  and  certain 
steps  to  a  plan  of  distinct  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.” 

59  "Ibid.,”  May  29,  1845.  "Official  History,”  183.  It  was 
said  that  the  long  debate  was  to  present  to  visitors  both  lay  and 
clerical  the  true  state  of  affairs. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH 


99 


Several  border  members  took  this  opportunity  to  ex¬ 
press  their  views.  They  were  in  general  accord,  they 
said,  with  the  South  but  reported  their  fields  to  be 
greatly  agitated;  they  feared  that,  if  they  adhered  to 
the  North  where  slaveholding  conferences  were  not 
wanted  they  would  be  intruders.  Others  were  sure 
the  border  would  throw  in  its  lot  with  the  South  but  not 
without  much  local  dissension  and  discord.  51 

On  May  15  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organ¬ 
ization  was  read.  The  address  which  forms  a  part  of 
the  report  fully  embodies  the  views  of  the  convention.  52 
Of  the  seven  resolutions  at  the  end  of  the  report  the 
first  is  most  important.  It  is  the  formal  declaration 
of  independence  of  the  southern  portion  of  the  church. 
It  solemnly  declared  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Conference  over  the  annual  conferences  in  the  South 
entirely  dissolved,  but  adopted  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  all  its  doctrinal, 
moral,  ecclesiastical  and  economical  regulations  with 
such  verbal  alterations  only  as  were  necessitated  by  the 
fact  of  a  distinct  organization.  The  style  and  title  of 
the  new  church  was  to  be :  The  Methodist  Episcopal 


51  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  29,  1845.  In  this  issue  the  remarks  of 
several  members  from  border  districts  are  reported.  See  especially 
the  remarks  of  Messrs.  Kavanaugh,  Stringfield,  Patton,  Monroe,  Har¬ 
rison,  Pitts,  Brock,  Crouch,  Harris  and  Brush. 

52  This  report  appears  in  full  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  June  5,  1845.  (11 
columns).  It  is  also  in  “Official  History,”  207-33;  and  in  Redford, 
“Organization,”  434-82. 

Its  leading  ideas  are  very  familiar  to  the  reader  by  this  time; 
separation  would  be  legal  as  it  was  based  on  the  Plan  ;  it  was  morally 
sound  as  it  would  save  the  church  in  the  South  ;  neither  side  could 
recede  as  each  acted  on  principle  ;  Christ  let  civil  matters  alone  and 
the  Discipline  had  always  allowed  for  the  civil  law  ;  now  the  North 
refused  to  do  this ;  the  South  could  not  agree  that  the  six  short 
restrictive  rules  in  the  Discipline  were  the  whole  of  the  constitution 
of  the  church  ;  recent  General  Conference  action  made  the  southern 
ministry  an  inferior  caste  ;  all  favored  continued  union  of  the  states, 
but  the  North  had  departed  from  its  old  conservative  policy. 


100  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Church,  South.  This  important  act  passed  by  a  vote 
of  95  to  2.  53  The  second  resolution  in  this  set,  express 
ing  a  hope  for  fraternal  intercourse  between  the  two 
churches,  passed  unanimously.  54 

Thus  another  momentous  step  was  taken  in  the 
disruption  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism.  A  newr 
church,  similar  in  all  important  respects  to  the  parent 
church  was  set  up  in  the  South,  as  the  logical  and  in¬ 
evitable  consequence  of  the  forces  we  have  studied. 
Like  the  later  Confederacy  which  adopted  the  United 
States  Constitution  almost  without  change,  the  new 
church  made  verbal  changes  only,  in  the  old  Discipline. 
Changes  would  have  been  inconsistent  as  the  South  held 
in  both  instances  that  the  fundamental  laws,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  if  correctly  interpreted  and  understood, 
fully  guaranteed  their  rights,  vindicated  their  claims 
and  sanctioned  their  acts.  In  the  southern  General 
Conference,  55  Petersburg,  Va.,  (May,  1846),  futile  at- 


53  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  29,  1845;  “Official  History,”  187-88. 

54  When  the  report  was  taken  up  as  a  whole,  the  vote  on  it 
stood  90  to  2,  (five  absent).  Redford,  “Organization,”  486.  The 
two  negative  votes  were  from  Kentucky,  (Messrs.  Taylor  and  Har¬ 
rison).  Mr.  Taylor  tells  in  a  letter  to  the  “Southwestern  Christian 
Advocate,”  (“Sw.  C.  A.”)  June  20,  1845,  why  he  voted  as  he  did:  “I 
voted  against  division  because  I  was  opposed  to  it  in  any  form.  I 
believed  that  we  needed  such  checks  and  balances  as  the  South  and 
North  afforded  each  other,  to  prevent  innovations  on  the  doctrines 
and  especially  the  usages  of  the  Church.  Had  the  South  waited  till 
another  General  Conference,  and  that  General  Conference  had  refused 
to  make  the  necessary  reparation,  I  would  have  voted  unhesitatingly 
for  a  separation  of  jurisdiction.”  He  denied  being  a  northern  man. 
He  gave  his  vote  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  church,  not  from  his  own 
personal  views.  He  settled  the  question  of  his  personal  allegiance  on 
personal  grounds  and  adhered  South. 

Note  here  the  similarity  of  ideas  between  the  southern  opposition 
to  ecclesiastical  division  in  1844-45  and  political  secession  in  1860-61. 
In  both  cases  it  was  rather  a  matter  of  time  than  of  fundamental  dif¬ 
ference  with  the  majority.  The  time  to  separate  or  secede  had  not 
come  yet,  but  in  the  minds  of  these  conservatives  it  might  well  come. 

55  For  some  account  of  the  organization  and  early  proceedings 
of  the  Conference  see  “Journals  General  Confei’ence  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,”  (1846),  3-8. 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH  101 


tempts  were  made  to  modify  the  sections  on  slavery. 
The  border  was  especially  hostile  to  change.  Its  dele¬ 
gates  had  promised  that  none  should  be  made.  50  This 
promise  was  kept,  but  not  without  a  struggle.  57  In 
succeeding  General  Conferences  of  the  southern  church 
— 1854,  1858 — the  struggle  against  changing  the  rules 
on  slavery  continued  against  ever-increasing  forces,  but 
on  the  whole  successfully.  58  In  1854,  however,  they 
agreed  upon  a  very  strained  interpretation  of  at  least 
one  part  of  the  disciplinary  regulations  on  slavery.  59 
The  superintendents  present  at  the  convention  were 
requested  to  join  the  new  church,  and  Bishop  Andrew 
immediately  complied.  Bishop  Soule  felt  that  he  must 
help  to  carry  out  the  episcopal  plan  of  visitation 
adopted  by  the  bishops,  until  the  first  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  the  Church,  South,  when  he  would  feel  free  to 
join  them. 60  On  May  19  the  convention  completed 
its  labors  and  adjourned.  61 


56  “W.  C.  A.,”  May  29,  3846. 

57  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  20,  28,  70-72,  73-75,  96,  100-101. 

58  There  is  practically  nothing  on  the  subject  in  the  minutes  of 
1850.  Certainly  no  action  against  the  rules  on  slavery  was  taken. 
See  “Journals,  South,”  (1854),  296,  299-300,  300-301  ;  “Journals, 
South,”  (1858),  383-85,  431,  443-44,  444-45,  447-49,  456-60. 

At  this  first  General  Conference  (1846),  a  delegate  was  appointed 
to  carry  to  the  approaching  General  Conference  of  the  old  church 
(1848),  the  fraternal  greetings  of  its  new  relative;  and  an  official 
history  of  the  separation  was  approved.  “Journals,  South,” 
(1846),  73-74,  100-101.  Matters  of  finance,  editors,  publishing  house. 
Avere  also  considered  and  legislated  upon. 

59  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  300-301. 

60  “Official  History,”  200-201.  How  that  decision  of  Bishop 
Soule’s  would  appear  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  quite  easy 
to  imagine.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  it  more  fully  at  a 
later  time. 

61  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  103. 


Chapter  V 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCH  REPUDIATES  THE 
PLAN  OF  SEPARATION,  1848 


There  were  three  distinct  classes  of  happenings 
growing  out  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  and  the  found¬ 
ing  of  the  new  church,  namely,  the  evolution  of  Metho¬ 
dist  opinion  leading  to  the  repudiation  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation  by  the  General  Conference  of  1848 ;  the 
struggle  over  the  boundary  as  laid  down  by  the  Plan ; 
and  the  final  settlement  of  the  property  question  in  the 
civil  courts.  These  will  now  be  treated  in  separate 
chapters  and  in  the  order  mentioned.  In  this  chapter 
attention  will  be  given  to  the  repudiation  of  the  Plan. 

As  we  turn  from  the  course  of  events  in  the  South 
to  study  contemporary  conditions  in  the  North,  a  very 
different  situation  confronts  us.  After  the  Conference, 
the  path  before  the  Methodists  of  the  South  was  plain 
and  easy.  There  was  the  Plan  of  Separation,  enacted 
in  a  fit  of  Christian  generosity  during  the  dying  hours 
of  the  General  Conference ;  and  there  was  the  sub¬ 
stantial  unanimity  of  the  South,  both  lay  and  clerical, 
touching  the  necessity  of  separation.  To  assemble 
the  convention  at  Louisville  with  delegates  nearly  all 
instructed  for  division,  to  organize  the  new  connection, 
and  set  its  wheels  spinning  were  easy  and  grateful 
tasks.  In  the  North  everything  was  different.  The 
delegates  returning  home  from  their  strenuous  labors 
in  New  York  City,  met  with  anything  but  enthusiastic 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


103 


approval.  They  1  had  sanctioned,  if  they  had  not 
produced,  a  cruel  rent  in  the  glorious  fabric  of  the 
beloved  church ;  they  had  surrendered  to  the  pleas  and 
demands  of  slaveholders  and  schismatics.  Their  con¬ 
stituents  needed  a  little  time  to  adjust  their  thoughts  to 
these  surprising  developments. 2  The  more  they 
thought  about  it,  the  more  certain  it  appeared  to  north¬ 
ern  Methodists  that  they  could  not  approve  the  Plan, 
and  soon  there  broke  forth  a  heated  newspaper  con¬ 
troversy  over  its  expediency  and  constitutionality. 
Every  aspect  of  the  question  was  discussed  and  most 
of  the  northern  leaders  took  part. 

Accustomed  to  the  conflict  of  interests  around 
constitutional  interpretations  in  the  political  life  of 
the  country,  we  should  expect  to  find  similar  conflicts 
in  the  church.  Such  questions  were  intricate  enough 
in  the  political  field  where  judicial  interpretation  had 
given  a  certain  definiteness  to  constitutional  principles, 
but  in  the  church  the  field  of  constitutional  law  was 
a  trackless  wilderness  in  which  one  could  easily  get 
lost.  Thus  the  widest  possible  differences  appeared, 
without  the  faintest  hope  of  an  authoritative  solution. 
In  the  first  place,  the  old  question  so  familiar  in  our 
political  affairs,  arose  in  the  church.  What  was  the 
nature  of  the  Methodist  constitution?  Had  it  founded 
a  government  of  limited  powers  like  the  national  gov¬ 
ernment,  or  a  government  of  general  powers  subject 
only  to  a  few  specific  restrictions — the  six  restrictive 
rules?  In  form,  at  least,  it  was  of  the  latter  type,  re¬ 
pugnant  as  that  was  to  American  political  instincts 


1  A  small  minority  had  vigorously  opposed  the  policy  of  the 
Committee  of  Nine  in  the  Conference.  See  again  the  remarks  of 
Griffith  and  Cartwright,  “Debates,”  219,  220. 

2  For  a  bitter  and  unfair  attack  on  the  General  Conference  see 
letter  of  Dr.  Emory  in  “Z.  H.,”  Dec.  4,  1844,  copied  (extracts)  from 
“C.  A.  and  J.” 


104  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


and  habits  of  thought.  3  Obviously  it  made  a  great 
difference  when  they  discussed  the  powers  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  and  the  validity  of  the  Plan  whether  the  church 
government  was  assumed  to  be  a  limited  one,  like  our 
federal  government,  with  powers  distinctly  specified, 
or  one  of  general  powers  with  a  few  stated  limitations. 

Dr.  Bangs  of  New  York,  a  believer  in  the  constitu¬ 
tionality  of  the  Plan,  held  that  the  church  government 
was  of  the  last-mentioned  type.  4  Yet  he  did  not  fol¬ 
low  out  this  thought  with  complete  consistency,  for  he 
believed  that  the  Conference  had  no  right  to  divide  the 
church,  although  it  is  nowhere  specifically  prohibited 
from  doing  so.  5 6  Dr.  Bangs’  view  was  strongly  con¬ 
troverted  by  an  anonymous  writer  who  expressed  his 
alarm  at  such  loose  doctrines.  He  urged  the  next  Con¬ 
ference  promptly  to  rescind  and  disavow  the  act  of 
the  last ;  he  had  never  intended  to  join  a  church  with 
the  sort  of  government  Dr.  Bangs  interpreted  the 
Methodist  Church  to  possess ;  and  he  urged  his  friends 
never  to  yield  acquiescence,  “no  not  for  an  hour.”0 


3  The  constitution  adopted  in  1808  when  the  mass  meeting 
General  Conference  gave  way  to  the  present  limited  body  provides : 
“The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and 
regulations  for  our  Church  under  the  following  limitations  and  re¬ 
strictions.”  “Discip.”  of  1840,  21.  Then  follows  the  enumeration  of 
six  specific  acts  the  Conference  must  not  do. 

4  “Our  constitution”  he  wrote,  referring  to  the  church  constitu¬ 
tion,  “differs  very  materially  in  some  respects  from  most  others. 
In  other  constitutions  distinct  powers  are  granted,  and  those  thus 
granted  are  specifically  enumerated  and  accurately  defined.  ..but  in 
our  constitution  certain  powers  which  are  definitely  enumerated,  are 
withheld,  and  all  the  rest  are  fully  granted.”  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  3, 
1845.  For  a  similar  view  see  Harris,  “Powers  of  the  General  Con¬ 
ference,”  21-23. 

5  He  held  that  the  Plan  did  not  profess  to  divide  the  church, 
so  he  was  consistent  in  thinking  the  Plan  constitutional.  See  his 
letter  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Nov.  27,  1844. 

6  He  exclaimed,  “Do  I  hear  aright?  Is  it  possible  that,  in 
this  land  of  Protestant  liberty,  such  a  proposal  has  been  seriously 
advanced  by  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church?  I  had  always  sup- 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


105 


Very  few  people  in  the  North  were  able  to  agree  with 
Dr.  Bangs.* * * * * * 7  As  the  North  grew  more  confident  in  its 
belief  that  the  Plan  was  unconstitutional  the  South 
was  not  slow  to  charge  it  with  inconsistency  in  exalting 
the  power  of  the  Conference  in  the  Bishop  Andrew 
case,  and  minimizing  it  in  discussing  the  constitution¬ 
ality  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  8 

Another  argument  relied  upon  to  discredit  the 
validity  of  the  Plan,  was  that  it  contravened  the  fifth 
restrictive  rule,  which  prohibited  the  Conference  from 
abridging  the  rights  of  trial  and  appeal  guaranteed  to 
ministers  and  members.  9  This  objection  was  one  of 
the  most  difficult  for  the  friends  of  the  Plan  to  meet. 
Dr.  Bangs  probably  voiced  the  best  answer  they  could 
find  to  it.  He  argued  that  the  Conference  had  not 
abridged  the  privileges  of  anyone,  nor  had  it  expelled 
any  one ;  it  had  simply  directed  that  members  remain 
in  the  church  in  their  own  section.  The  southern 
church  would  still  be  a  Methodist  Church.  He  added 
also  that  the  church  could  say  where  ministers  should 
labor, 10  and  that  minorities  in  any  case  must  abide  by 
the  decisions  of  majorities  in  the  church  as  elsewhere. 


posed  the  General  Conference  to  be  a  body  of  delegated  and  limited 

powers.  But  now  we  are  told,  in  effect,  that  they  may  do  what¬ 

ever  they  please ;  for  who  shall  assure  us  that  the  day  may  never  come 

when  even  the  few  express  restrictions  in  the  Discipline  will  be  over¬ 

ridden  by  virtue  of  that  supreme  ‘law  of  necessity’  of  which  the  Doctor 

speaks?”  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  24,  1845. 

7.  In  general,  the  venerable  Dr.  Stephen  Olin  supported  the  views 
of  Bangs.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Sept.  10,  1845. 

8  “R.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  26,  1844.  Of  course  the  argument  worked 
both  ways.  The  South  made  the  opposite  shift  in  emphasis  in  dis¬ 
cussing  the  two  cases. 

9  “Discipline”  of  1840,  22.  The  conference  “shall  not  do  away 
the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee, 
and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our 
members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an 
appeal.” 

10  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  13,  1845. 


106  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Further  he  warned  that  some  individual  distress  would 
necessarily  follow  any  solution  of  so  complex  a  prob¬ 
lem. 


Another  focus  of  debate  was  the  third  restrictive 
rule,  which  withheld  from  the  General  Conference  the 
power  to  destroy  the  general  superintendency,  that  is 
to  say,  modify  the  ecclesiastical  arrangements  so  as  to 
hinder  the  bishops  from  traveling  freely  over  all  the 
connection. 11  The  opponents  of  the  Plan  said  it 
clearly  violated  this  article ;  the  bishops  and  preachers 
were  prevented  from  serving  in  all  parts  of  American 
Methodism.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  said  that  the 
church  had  already  restricted  the  episcopacy  when  it 
abandoned  its  jurisdiction  over  the  Canadian  Metho¬ 
dists,  12  and  had  not  then  thought  it  illegal.  Moreover, 
would  not  Methodist  bishops  and  preachers  be  travel¬ 
ing  over  the  South  doing  their  regular  work  as  be¬ 
fore?13  It  was  standing  on  a  mere  technicality,  they 
said,  to  see  in  the  Plan  a  violation  of  this  restriction. 
Closely  related  to  this  objection,  was  another  frequent¬ 
ly  heard,  namely,  that  the  Plan  limited  the  field  of 
ministerial  activity  contrary  to  the  divine  commission 
which  Christ  gave  to  his  disciples  that  they  go  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel. 

As  the  argument  went  on,  its  inconclusive  charac¬ 
ter  grew  more  apparent.  On  no  recognized  authority 


11  “Discip.”  of  1840,  21.  They  shall  not  “alter  any  part  or 
rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to .  .  .  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
general  superintendency.” 

12  See  below,  pages  110^13. 

13  Supporters  of  the  Plan  might  well  have  added  that  the  gen¬ 
eral  superintendency  was  more  a  theory  than  a  fact  anyhow.  Bishop 
Andrew  had  never  appeared  or  presided  at  the  New  England  con¬ 
ferences  between  1832  and  1844,  as  the  ideal  of  a  general  superintend¬ 
ency  required  him  to  do. 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


107 


in  the  church  was  there  imposed  the  task  of  passing  on 
the  validity  of  Conference  acts.  Every  sort  of  opin¬ 
ion  arose  as  to  who  might  exercise  that  function.  As 
Dr.  Bangs  observed,  it  was  much  easier  to  say  who 
should  not  than  who  should.  Slyly  rapping  his  edi¬ 
torial  opponents  14  who  had  already  passed  adversely 
on  the  Plan  and  were  fighting  it  tooth  and  nail,  he  ex¬ 
pressed  himself  as  quite  sure  that  editors,  who  were 
the  servants  of  the  General  Conference,  had  no  author¬ 
ity  to  declare  its  acts  null  and  void.  As  far  as  he 
could  see,  the  Conference  was  the  sole  judge  of  the 
validity  of  its  own  acts. 15 

Some  men  guessed  that  the  annual  conferences 
were  the  true  and  final  judges  placed  over  the  General 
Conference.  The  Illinois  conference  was  especially 
sure  of  the  correctness  of  this  guess,  stating  its 
views  thereon  very  emphatically. 16  Others  were  quick 
to  point  out  the  anarchistic  tendencies  of  this  particu¬ 
lar  attempt  at  improvising  a  supreme  court  or  rather  a 
series  of  supreme  courts. 17  Incidentally  also  the 
reader  will  recognize  here  an  obvious  echo  in  the 
ecclesiastical  controversy  of  the  issues  involved  in  the 
Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  1798-99.  The 
state  rights  philosophy  made  the  Illinois  suggestion 


14  Drs.  Bond  and  Elliott,  editors  respectively  of  the  “C.  A.  and 
.T.”  and  the  “R.  C.  A.” 

15  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  22,  1845. 

16  Since  the  Discipline  omits  to  mention  where  the  final  judicial 
power  lies,  “it  follows,”  says  this  conference,  “that  the  annual  con¬ 
ferences,  being  the  immediate  constituents  of  the  General  Conference, 
constitute  the  natural  and  proper  tribunal  and  exclusively  possess 
the  right  to  determine  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  acts  and  do¬ 
ings  of  the  General  Conference.” 

Then  rising  to  the  full  height  of  the  dignity  and  authority  thus 
newly  assumed  it  declared  the  Plan  invalid.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  15, 
1845. 

17  See  “Pittsburgh  C.  A.,”  Oct.  22,  1845. 


108  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


seem  natural.  The  great  need  of  such  a  court  is  shown 
by  Dr.  Bond’s  partial  endorsement  of  a  scheme  to  sup¬ 
ply  the  lack.  A  correspondent 18  suggested  a  new 
court  to  be  composed  of  twenty  members,  including  the 
bishops,  equally  divided  between  the  two  sections.  It 
was  to  have  an  absolute  veto  on  the  acts  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference.  Another  suggestion  was  that  it  be 
given  a  suspensive  veto,  which  might  be  overridden  by 
a  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  vote  of  the  Conference.19 

Dr.  Bangs  and  his  followers  were  waging  a  losing 
fight.  The  weight  of  opposing  opinion  gradually  over¬ 
powered  them.  Some  very  interesting  instances  of  the 
evolution  of  individual  opinion  appeared.  In  1846  Dr. 
Bond  was  much  more  certain  of  the  inexpediency  and 
unconstitutionality  of  the  Plan  than  he  had  been  in 
1844,  20  while  Dr.  Elliott  executed  the  most  spectacular 
intellectual  somersault  exhibited  during  the  entire  de¬ 
bate.  Dr.  Elliott  had  come  out  very  strongly  for  the 
Plan  when  it  was  before  the  Conference.  It  would  not 
hurt  the  church,  he  had  said.  It  was  scriptural.  It 
was  in  keeping  with  good  precedents  in  the  ancient 
church  and  in  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  not 
sanctioning  or  condoning  a  schism  but  providing  for  a 
friendly  separation  for  mutual  convenience.  21  He 


18  “Conservator”  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  15,  1845.  He  suggested 
the  high  sounding  title  :  The  Federal  Court  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States. 

19  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  22,  1845.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  this  plan  made  such  an  impression  that  an  unsuccessful  at¬ 
tempt  was  made  in  the  General  Conference  of  1852  to  get  such  a  court 
established  as  part  of  the  permanent  machinery  of  the  church.  “Jour¬ 
nals,”  III.  (1852),  195-96. 

20  Compare  for  example  his  remarks  at  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  (“Debates,”  223-24),  and  his  editorial  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  June 
26,  1844,  with  his  editorial  of  June  4,  1845. 

21  “Debates,”  219.  See  also  his  editorial  in  “W.  C. 
A.,”  Aug.  16,  1844.  In  the  latter  he  said :  “We  are  persuaded  that 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


109 


was  also  more  willing  then  to  give  a  wider  interpreta¬ 
tion  to  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  than  he 
was  later  when  the  bitterness  of  feeling  between  North 
and  South  had  more  fully  emerged. 22  The  tend¬ 
ency  to  move  with  the  current  of  opinion  setting  in 
against  the  Plan  affected  him  along  with  other  northern 
Methodists,  and  soon  he  was  as  much  opposed  to  it  as 
was  Dr.  Bond.  By  April,  1845,  he  was  washing  his 
hands  of  the  separation  because  of  the  bad  temper  and 
unchristian  spirit  of  the  South.  His  growing  disgust 
at  their  excesses  led  him  to  criticize  severely  the  Louis¬ 
ville  convention  and  to  repudiate  entirely  the  Plan  he 
had  once  praised.  23 

Dr.  Elliott’s  somersault  was  a  source  of  amuse¬ 
ment  to  the  southern  editors.  24  Perhaps  he  has  been 
too  severely  criticized  for  changing  his  mind.  If 


distinct  organizations  must  exist  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States.  We  believe  the  General  Conference  did  right 
....  If  the  question  came  up  again  next  week  our  vote  would  be  the 
same.” 

A  little  later  he  said  :  “For  ourselves,  we  are  now  unwilling  to 
consider  them  [the  southern  Methodists]  either  as  schismatics  or  as 
even  seceders  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  we  shall 
continue  so  to  think  and  act  until  we  are  compelled  by  the  necessity 
of  the  case  to  think  and  act  otherwise.” 

But  note  that  there  is  a  hint  of  wavering  in  this  editorial.  He 
continued :  “We  write  not  these  things  because  we  are  in  favor  of 
separation,  as  some  may  suppose.  We  are  not  in  favor  of  separation 
now,  nor  for  the  causes  on  account  of  which  it  may  now  take  place.” 
“W.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  27,  1844. 

22  In  controverting  a  narrow  interpretation  of  Conference 
powers  he  practically  adopted  Dr.  Bangs’  view  of  the  matter,  which 
opened  the  way  for  someone  to  ask  him  where  he  found  any  restric¬ 
tion  prohibiting  the  Conference  from  dividing  the  church  or  at  least 
sanctioning  the  division.  “W.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  13,  1844. 

23  See  “W.  C.  A.,”  June  13,  1845. 

24  The  editor  of  the  “R.  C.  A.”  had  already  charged  him  with 
being  a  turncoat.  For  a  very  striking  comparison  of  his  earlier  and 
later  views  see  Scarritt,  “Position  of  the  M.  E.  Ch.,  South,  on 
Slavery,”  36. 


110  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

circumstances  change,  a  man’s  opinions  may  legitimate¬ 
ly  change  also.  25  It  is  not  necessary  for  our  purpose 
to  decide  whether  or  not  Dr.  Elliott  was  right.  Let 
us  simply  note  that  his  change  of  view  was  significant 
of  the  wider  change  going  on  in  the  attitude  of  north¬ 
ern  Methodism  toward  the  Plan  of  Separation.  20 

Since  there  was  no  supreme  court  to  settle  the  dif¬ 
ferences  on  constitutional  interpretation  it  was  natural 
for  the  debaters  to  ransack  Methodist  history  for  pre¬ 
cedents.  The  incident  which  seemed  to  offer  the  great¬ 
est  number  of  elements  paralleling  the  current  strug¬ 
gle  was  the  relinquishment  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
Canadian  Methodists  by  their  American  godfathers  in 
1832.  Soon  after  the  formation  of  the  Methodist  Church 
in  the  United  States,  it  developed  a  missionary  interest 
in  Canada.  In  1812  Upper  and  Lower  Canada  had 
appeared  as  parts  of  the  Genesee  annual  conference. 
During  the  War  of  1812,  a  number  of  American  workers 
had  come  home  and  their  places  had  been  taken  by 
English  Wesley ans.  With  the  growth  of  the  two 
branches  of  the  Methodist  family  there,  and  the  rise  of 
a  Canadian  patriotic  feeling,  friction  had  developed  to 
an  extent  making  new  arrangements  imperative.  After 
considerable  hesitation  the  General  Conference,  in  1820, 
had  transferred  Lower  Canada  to  the  Wesley  ans. 


25  He  frankly  recognized  his  change  and  attributed  it  to  unex¬ 
pected  developments  in  the  spirit,  attitude  and  aims  on  the  part  of 
the  South.  “W.  C.  A.,”  April  23,  1845. 

One  might  say  that  Elliott  was  the  Greeley  of  the  Methodist 
schism.  Greeley  at  first  would  let  the  erring  sisters  (states)  go  in 
peace,  and  later  turned  to  favor  a  policy  of  forcing  the  same  erring 
sisters  to  remain  in  the  Union.  “N.  Y.  Tribune,”  Nov.  9,  16,  19.  30, 
1860,  and  Jan.  14,  Feb.  2,  1861. 

26  For  sample  resolutions,  correspondence,  etc.,  see  ‘‘Great 
Secession,”  499-514,  where  a  considerable  body  of  material  is  brought 
together. 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


111 


The  same  divisive  forces,  added  to  some  personal 
difficulties,  kept  alive  and  increased  the  discontent  in 
Upper  Canada,  which  had  become  (1824)  a  separate 
annual  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Petitions  had  poured  in  for  and  against  a  separation. 
In  1828,  while  the  Conference  had  doubted  its  constitu¬ 
tional  authority  to  divide  the  church,  it  had  decided 
that  it  could  allow  Methodists  on  territory  outside  the 
United  States  to  form  themselves  into  an  independent 
body.  27  Temporary  arrangements  had  been  made 
until  Canadian  financial  claims  could  be  permanently 
adjusted.  In  1832  at  the  urgent  request  of  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  Canadian  Methodism  the  Conference  had 
sent  around  a  resolution  asking  the  annual  conferences 
to  suspend  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  of  the  Discipline  to 
permit  a  division  of  the  Book  Concern  property  with 
the  new  Canadian  church.  In  due  time  this  request 
had  been  refused,  the  opposition  having  been  especially 
strong  in  the  South.  28  When  this  vote  was  reported 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1836  it  had  provided  a 
mutually  satisfactory  plan  for  extinguishing  the  claims 
by  granting  the  Canadian  Methodists,  for  sixteen  years, 
a  liberal  discount  on  all  books  bought  by  them  from  the 
publishing  house.  29 


27  The  resolutions  embodying  this  decision  were  passed  as  a 
whole  by  a  vote  of  108  to  22. 

28  In  nine  typical  slaveholding  conferences  the  vote  totalled  59 
to  384 — over  six  to  one — against  suspending  the  rule. 

The  total  vote  was  599  for  and  758  against.  “Journals,”  I. 
(1836),  461.  The  southerners’  vote  on  this  occasion  was  an  uncom¬ 
fortable  bit  of  history  for  them  in  1845. 

29  The  details  of  this  series  of  transactions  are  not  easy  to 
unravel,  owing  partly  to  errors  and  ambiguities  in  both  sources  and 
secondary  writings.  For  the  material  on  the  subject  see:  “C.  A.  and 
J„”  Dec.  6,  1849  (a  good  general  account  of  the  Canadian  separation)  ; 
“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Nov.  22,  1849  (letter  from  Dr.  Bangs,  correcting  an 
error  in  his  “History,”  III.  389-90,  relative  to  the  Canadian  affair)  ; 
Bangs,  “History,”  II.  III.  and  IV.  passim ;  Sutton,  “The  Metho- 


112  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Each  side  seized  upon  this  episode  as  furnishing 
argument  that  would  crush  the  opposition.  Dr.  Bond 
was  sure  that  it  could  not  aid  the  friends  of  the  Plan. 
In  the  first  place,  he  said,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  never  had  had  a  legal  existence  in  Canada. 
Political  exigencies — conditions  beyond  their  control  30 
— had  forced  Canadian  Methodism  to  sever  its  connec¬ 
tion  with  American  Methodism.  Then,  again,  it  was 
said  that  Canada  had  been  a  missionary  field,  so  the 
church,  not  having  been  under  the  ordinary  constitu¬ 
tional  limitations  there,  could  allow  withdrawal,  with¬ 
out  establishing  a  precedent  for  the  separation  of  in¬ 
tegral  parts  of  itself  as  the  southern  conferences  ad¬ 
mittedly  were.  31  The  fact  also  that  Canada  had  been 
only  by  courtesy  a  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States ,  played  a  role  in  the  con¬ 
troversy. 

Those  who  felt  that  the  incident  furnished  a  con¬ 
clusive  argument  for  the  power  of  the  Conference  to 
pass  the  Plan  of  Separation,  could  make  out  quite  a 
respectable  case.  Especially  telling  was  their  attack 
on  the  missionary  field  idea.  Could  the  Conference, 
they  asked,  cut  off  members  in  mission  fields  without 
the  right  of  trial  secured  by  the  fifth  restrictive  rule? 
If  such  an  exception  had  been  intended,  it  would  have 
been  clearly  expressed.  Suppose  Canada  had  been  mis¬ 
sionary  ground,  had  not  most  of  the  United  States  also 


dist  Church  Property  Case,”  34-42,  166-75,  280,  320,  343  ;  “Journals,” 
I.  (1824,  1828,  1832,  1836),  see  indices. 

Dr.  Bangs’  statement  at  the  Conference  of  1844  that  the  Canadian 
church  had  been  given  $10,000  is  erroneous.  See  “C.  A.  and  J.,” 
Feb.  7,  1850. 

30  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  5,  1S45.  He  noted  also  that  the  Cana¬ 
dian  Methodists  had  not  set  up  a  new  organization  taking  the  name 
of  the  parent  church  as  the  South  had  done. 

31  “Z.  H.,”  Dec.  18,  1844  (Porter’s  letter). 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


113 


been  Methodist  missionary  ground  at  some  time?  If 
that  sort  of  argument  made  the  Canadian  separation 
constitutional  it  would  seem  to  do  the  same  for  the 
present  division.  The  argument,  too,  advanced  by  Dr. 
Bond,  that  the  grounds  of  separation  were  not  of  Can¬ 
ada’s  making,  but  grew  out  of  political  conditions  be¬ 
yond  their  control,  32  came  very  near  to  describing  the 
situation  in  the  South  in  1844.  Dr.  Bangs  scored  a 
strong  point  when  he  said  that  in  transferring  Lower 
Canada  to  the  Wesleyans  in  1820,  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  did,  as  a  matter  of  simple  fact,  find  itself 
possessed  of  sufficient  power  to  sanction  a  transfer  of 
societies  and  buildings  to  the  jurisdiction  of  another 
body,  33  even  when  some  of  those  thus  cut  off  strongly 
opposed  the  surgery.  The  wail  from  a  forsaken  south¬ 
ern  minority,  which  was  evoking  such  melting  pity 
from  certain  editors  in  1845,  seems  to  have  been  quite 
bearable  when  coming  from  Lower  Canada  in  1820.  34 
We  know  it  had  been  disregarded  in  1836  when  it  came 
from  Upper  Canada.  35  Thus  each  faction  professed  to 
find  in  the  Canadian  case  just  what  it  needed. 

This  deep  difference  of  opinion  on  a  constitutional 
question  showed  itself  in  more  practical  ways,  through 
the  action  of  the  bishops  in  drawing  up  a  plan  of  episco¬ 
pal  visitation  36  for  the  ensuing  four  years ;  and  in  the 
voting  in  the  annual  conferences  on  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  from  the  General  Conference,  that  they  concur  in 


32  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  5,  1845. 

33  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  6,  1845  (letter  from  Dr.  Bangs). 

34  I  have  found  no  direct  evidence  that  objectors  abounded  iu 
Lower  Canada.  The  statement  is  based  on  the  pretty  safe  assumption 
that  no  such  transfer  could  have  occurred  with  the  unanimous 
approval  of  those  concerned. 

35  For  a  clear  case  see  “Journals,”  I.  (1836),  452. 

36  The  regular  itinerary  of  the  bishops  among  the  annual  con¬ 
ferences. 


114  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

the  suspension  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  to  allow  a 
division  of  the  church  property.  The  Conference 
action  on  the  Bishop  Andrew  case  had  created  a  deli¬ 
cate  situation  for  the  bishops.  It  had  expressed  its 
sense  that  Bishop  Andrew  should  desist  from  the  labors 
of  his  office  as  long  as  his  connection  with  slavery  con¬ 
tinued.  87  In  almost  the  same  breath  it  had  said  it 
considered  him  still  a  bishop,  and  free  to  choose 
whether  or  not  he  would  comply  with  its  wishes.  88  In 
trying  to  discharge  their  duties  in  view  of  these 
somewhat  ambiguous  actions  of  the  Conference,  the 
bishops  found  an  unfortunate  difference  of  opinion 
among  themselves.  They  met  in  New  York,  June  11, 
1844,  to  arrange  the  itinerary.  All  attended  but  Bishop 
Andrew.  Since  the  latter  had  not,  apparently,  asked 
for  a  share  of  the  work  or  signified  his  decision  on  the 
question  the  Conference  had  left  to  him,  most  of  the 
bishops  did  not  feel  free  to  include  him  in  their  pro¬ 
gram.  89  Prom  this  view  Bishop  Soule  dissented,  40 
and  an  alternative  itinerary  was  prepared  to  include 
Bishop  Andrew.  This  was  entrusted  to  Bishop  Soule, 
with  the  understanding,  it  is  alleged,  that  if  Bishop 
Andrew  applied  for  work  Bishop  Soule  would  publish 
the  second  plan  and  explain  the  delay.41 


37  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  83-84. 

38  “Ibid.,”  118. 

39  They  resolved,  “It  is  our  opinion  in  regard  to  the  action  of 
the  late  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  that  it  was 
designed  by  that  body  to  devolve  the  responsibility  of  the  exercise  of 
the  functions  of  his  office  exclusively  on  himself.”  Since  he  had 
not  applied  they  must  leave  him  out.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  19,  1845. 

40  “R.  C.  A.,”  Mar.  6,  1845  ;  item  copied  from  “S.  C.  A.”  Also 
Smith,  “Andrew,”  362-66. 

41  “R.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  27,  1845.  This  explanation,  published  here 
over  the  signatures  of  the  four  northern  bishops,  in  order  to  clear  up 
a  misunderstanding,  agrees  substantially  with  Bishop  Soule’s  letter  on 
the  same  subject  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  13,  1845. 


PLAN  OP  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


115 


Without  publishing  this  document,  though  he  al¬ 
leged  that  Bishop  Andrew  expressed  to  him  preference 
for  episcopal  work,  42  Bishop  Soule  invited  him  to  assist 
in  the  regular  work  with  the  southern  conferences  to 
which  Bishop  Soule  had  been  assigned.  43  Bishop  An¬ 
drew  accepted,  and  concerning  Bishop  Soule’s  act  a 
lively  debate  arose.  Had  he  kept  faith  with  the  bishops  ? 
Had  he  gone  against  the  definite  wishes  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  ?  44  It  is  clear  that  Bishop  Soule  placed  himself 
in  opposition  to  his  northern  colleagues,  and  while  he 
was  doubtless  convinced  of  the  complete  rectitude  of 
his  course,  he  certainly  took  the  law  into  his  own 
hands,  45 — an  act  which  was  in  notable  contrast  with  a 
theory  he  expressed  a  little  later. 

The  expression  just  mentioned  came  about  in  this 
way.  Soon  after  the  meeting  of  the  Louisville  conven¬ 
tion  the  bishops,  who  intended  to  remain  with  the  old 
church,  voted  not  to  attend  or  preside  at,  the  southern 


42  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  17,  1845,  (letter  of  J.  S.  Mitchell  at  the 
Baltimore  conference  to  the  “Nashville  C.  A.”) 

43  Soule’s  letter  of  invitation  is  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  4,  1844. 
Before  receiving  this  letter,  Andrew  had  decided  not  to  engage  in 
regular  work  (due  largely  to  the  rumors  as  to  the  feeling  and  action 
of  the  bishops),  but  the  invitation  changed  his  mind.  “Ibid.,”  see 
letter  copied  from  “S.  C.  A.” 

44  See  Dr.  Bangs’  letter  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  December  11,  1844, 
and  Dr.  Bond’s  editorial  the  following  week.  Soule  denied  the  im¬ 
plication  of  bad  faith,  or  of  a  stretch  of  power.  “S.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  17,  1845. 

45  He  appears  not  to  have  cared  really  whether  Bishop  Andrew 
had  asked  for  work  or  not,  and  here  a  fundamental  difference  be¬ 
tween  himself  and  his  colleagues  crops  out.  “Now  suppose,”  he  said, 
“it  were  admitted  that  he  did  neither  [ask  or  demand  work],  what 
then?  Why  the  questions  are  asked,  who  required  that  he  should  do 
either  the  one  or  the  other?  What  obligation  was  he  under  to  do  so? 
By  what  authority  was  he  required  to  ask  or  demand  work  of  me,  or 
any  one  of  his  colleagues?  Who  gave  me  or  any  one  of  the  bishops 
any  superiority  or  pre-eminence  over  Bishop  Andrew,  that  he  should 
come  to  us  to  ask  for  work,  as  if  we  had  a  right  to  withhold  it  from 
him?  Was  I  not  under  as  much  obligation  to  ask  work  of  him  as  he 
was  to  ask  it  of  me?  I  know  no  difference.”  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  21, 
1845. 


116  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


conferences.  46  This  was  an  eminently  sensible  meas¬ 
ure,  and  showed  a  tendency  to  guide  conduct  by  reali¬ 
ties  rather  than  by  abstractions.  Bishop  Soule  could 
not  accept  this  apparently  plain  and  straightforward 
view  of  the  case.  In  due  time  he  got  a  notice  47  of  the 
action  of  the  bishops  and  also  a  suggested  plan  by 
which  Bishop  Morris  might  take  his  northern  appoint¬ 
ments  if  he  chose  to  change  his  field  of  labor.  Bishop 
Soule,  however,  was  unable  to  see  the  situation  as  it 
really  was,  and  based  his  refusal  to  agree  to  the  plan 
upon  the  ground  that  it  would  be  something  new  for 
him  as  a  Methodist  preacher  to  decline  to  work  where 
he  had  been  sent  by  the  constituted  authority  and  to 
choose  to  work  elsewhere  48 — a  very  fine,  loyal  senti¬ 
ment  to  be  sure  but  rather  amusing  coming  from  him. 
These  same  constituted  authorities  had  carried  little 
weight  when  they  asked  him  to  give  Bishop  Andrew 
work  only  when  he  applied  for  it.  Bishop  Soule’s  per¬ 
sistence  in  carrying  out  the  original  scheme  of  visita¬ 
tion  in  spite  of  the  action  of  the  Louisville  Convention 
and  his  relations  to  it,  led  to  at  least  one  very  painful 
episode  when  he  attempted  to  preside  at  the  Ohio  an¬ 
nual  conference.  49  His  was  a  course  hard  to  reconcile 
with  consistency.  On  the  other  side  the  stand  of  the 
majority  of  the  bishops  on  the  Plan  of  Separation  was 


46  This  action  was  taken  July  3,  1845,  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  9, 
1845,)  and  greatly  pleased  the  southern  editors,  (“R.  C.  A.,”  July  17, 
1845.) 

47  From  the  other  bishops. 

48  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  14,  1845.  “Now,”  said  Bishop  Soule,  “the 
truth  is,  I  neither  ‘ choose  to  change  my  field  of  labor,  or  decline  at¬ 
tending’  conferences  assigned  me  by  the  ‘college’  of  Bishops.  ...  To 
‘choose  to  change  my  field  of  labor,  or  decline  to  attend’  the  work 
assigned  me  by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church.  .  .would 
form  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  my  life  as  a  Methodist  preacher.” 

49  “W.  C.  A.,”  July  4,  1845  (letter  from  Peter  Cartwright)  ; 
“Ibid.,”  July  18,  1845  (Bastian,  Weed).  The  opinions  expressed  in 
these  letters  were  evidently  general  and  at  the  Ohio  conference  (Sept., 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


117 


in  striking  contrast  50  to  the  swelling  tide  of  nullifica¬ 
tion  menacing  it  in  the  North. 

The  other  series  of  events  which  measured  this 
veering  of  sentiment  on  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Plan  was  the  voting  in  the  annual  conferences  on  the 
recommendation  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule. 
The  voting  began  in  the  sessions  of  the  New  York  an¬ 
nual  conference  the  day  51  after  the  General  Conference 
adjourned,  and  continued  well  into  the  following 
spring.  52  A  most  interesting  development  revealed  in 
this  series  of  votes  was  the  gradual  stiffening  of  senti¬ 
ment  against  the  Conference  recommendation  as  each 
annual  conference  in  order,  acted  on  the  question. 
Those  voting  first  emphatically  favored  the  proposed 
suspension  of  the  rule,  those  voting  in  the  intermediate 
period  wavered,  while  the  later  ones,  including  the 
great  majority,  decidedly  opposed  the  change.  53  At 


1845)  the  disagreeable  episode  referred  to  in  the  text  occurred.  “W. 
C.  A.,”  Sept.  12,  1845. 

On  the  other  hand  it  should  be  said  for  Bishop  Soule  that  his 
course  was  sanctioned  by  the  South.  “S.  C.  A.,”  June  20,  1845. 

50  See  Bishop  Morris’  letter  to  Bishop  Andrew,  February  19, 
1845.  Smith,  “Andrew,”  362-66. 

51  June  12,  1844. 

52  That  is,  it  ended  with  the  voting  in  the  New  Jersey  con¬ 
ference  in  April,  1845. 

53  For  instance,  three  conferences  voting  in  June  and  July  stood 
as  follows  :  June  12,  1844  the  New  York  conference  voted  143  yes,  38 
no.  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  June  26,  1844).  July  3,  1844,  Providence,  unani¬ 
mously  yes.  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  7,  1844).  July  24,  Rock  River 
conference,  45  yes,  10  no.  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  30,  1844). 

Three  meeting  in  August  and  September  acted  as  follows  :  Aug. 
14,  Maine  conference,  action  postponed.  (“Z.  H.,”  Sept.  4).  Aug.  13,  N. 
Ohio  conference,  2  yes,  86  no.  (“Z.  H.,”  Sept.  18,  1844).  Sept.  4, 
Illinois  conference,  22  yes,  38  no.  (“W.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  4). 

The  three  conferences  voting  in  March  and  April,  1845,  after 
hearing  eight  or  nine  months  of  heated  debate  on  the  constitutionality 
of  the  Plan,  stood  :  March  12,  Baltimore  conference,  40  yes,  148  no. 
(“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Mar.  26).  April  2,  Philadelphia  conference,  12  yes, 
104  no,  absent  21.  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  April  16,  1845).  April  23,  New 

Jersey  conference,  2  yes,  110  no.  (“Minutes  of  the  New  Jersey  Annual 
Conference,”  11). 


118  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

first  it  looked  favorable  for  the  South,  then  rather 
doubtful,  and  finally  it  became  certain  that  the  con¬ 
stitutional  change  would  not  be  authorized.  When  the 
total  vote  was  tabulated  there  were  found  to  be  2,135 
for  and  1,070  against  it.  This  was  almost  exactly  two 
to  one  in  its  favor,  but  the  constitution  required  a 
three-fourths  majority  of  the  delegates.  54  This  result, 
it  should  be  noted,  included  the  nearly  unanimous 
affirmative  votes  of  the  southern  conferences.  The 
northern  conferences  however  gave  a  clear  majority 
for  the  change — 1164  to  1067.  55  The  outstanding 
fact,  however,  was  that  the  recommendation  to  change 
the  rule  had  been  legally  rejected. 

Why  did  the  preacher-voters  in  the  northern  con¬ 
ferences  refuse  to  authorize  the  change  ?  Primarily  be¬ 
cause  they  were  opposed  to  dividing  the  church. 50 
They  were  unwilling  to  have  even  the  appearance  of 
favoring  it  by  lending  their  sanction  to  any  atom  of  the 
Plan.  57  Another  influence  of  unquestioned  import- 


54  How  should  the  majority  be  ascertained?  This  was  a  con¬ 
troverted  point.  For  the  controversy  see  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Nov.  23 
and  Dec.  11,  1844. 

55  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  13,  1848.  Report  of  speech  by  Dr.  Durbin 
in  the  General  Conference  of  1848. 

56  For  one  of  several  hints  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  “one  and  indivisible” — hints  suggestive  of  later  developments — 
see  Monroe’s  Compromise,  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Sept.  3,  1845. 

57  Some  opinions  expressed  by  the  conferences  themselves  were 
as  follows  : 

The  North  Ohio  conference  refused  to  sanction  the  proposed 
alteration  because  (1)  the  church  could  only  be  divided  by  secession  ; 
(2)  there  was  no  real  necessity  for  division  ;  (3)  the  Plan  restricted 
the  church  to  the  North  in  opposition  to  Christ’s  command  to  go  out 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel ;  and  (4)  to  vote  the  desired 
change  would  give  the  General  Conference  a  permanent  power  alto¬ 
gether  too  extensive.  “W.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  20,  1844. 

The  Illinois  conference  opposed  the  division  of  the  church,  but 
admitted  that  if  division  actually  occurred,  the  South  ought  to  have 
its  share  of  the  common  property.  “W.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  4,  1844. 

The  Baltimore  conference  gave  the  following  reasons  for  its  vote 
against  suspending  the  restriction,:  (1)  It  wished  to  do  nothing  that 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


119 


ance  in  achieving  this  outcome  was  the  violent  langu¬ 
age  employed  by  the  southern  primary  meetings  against 
the  North  while  the  organization  of  the  new  church 
was  proceeding.  The  feeling  crops  out  in  the  northern 
Methodist  press  that  it  would  be  highly  inexpedient  to 
encourage  in  any  way  the  formation  of  a  separate  de¬ 
nomination  so  bitterly  hostile  to  the  old  church. 58. 
Furthermore,  the  belief  that  the  South  was  violating 
the  Plan  in  several  respects,  especially  the  boundary 
provisions,  59  and  the  fear,  naturally  strongest  in  the 
old  abolition  conferences,  that  the  southern  church 


appeared  to  favor  division  ;  (2)  to  remove  the  restriction  permanently 
(and  there  was  nothing  in  the  recommendation  to  show  that  it  was 
to  be  temporary)  would  clothe  the  Conference  with  dangerous  power  ; 
(3)  the  proposed  action  would  not  accomplish  the  result  aimed  at, 
since  it  authorized  merely  the  apportionment  of  the  proceeds,  while 
the  Plan  contemplated  the  division  of  the  capital ;  but,  finally,  (4)  it 
disclaimed  any  wish  to  cheat  the  South.  “Great  Secession,’’  408-09. 

The  reaction  of  the  South  to  the  sort  of  talk  found  in  the  fourth 
item  of  the  Baltimore  list  of  reasons  is  shown  by  the  editor’s  com¬ 
ment  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  3,  1845  :  It  is  due  to  the  Baltimore  con¬ 
ference  to  say  that  all  who  spoke  denied  any  intention  to  prevent  a 
just  division  of  the  property,  if  it  should  be  necessary.  Yet  how  can 
this  be?  “There  is  but  one  constitutional  mode  of  doing  the  thing, 
that  mode  was  submitted  to  them  and  they  have  refused  to  concur  in 
it  by  a  vote  of  151  to  42.”  (The  church  newspapers  differ  slightly 
as  to  the  exact  vote). 

Referring  to  the  certain  failure  of  the  vote  the  editor  of  the 
“R.  C.  A.”  continues  at  another  time :  “But  will  this  stay  or  prevent 
the  division  of  the  church?  Not  one  whit!  There  is  something  more 
than  money  involved  in  this  question.  And  dollars  and  cents  can 
never  be  suffered  to  mingle  in  a  question  of  principle.  The  Southern 
Conferences  will  unquestionably  separate,  money  or  no  money, — they 
go  for  principle  not  interest “R.  C.  A.,”  March  27,  1845. 

58  “Z.  H.,”  July  3,  1844.  The  editor  very  well  stated  this 
feeling :  “But  the  late  unqualified  recklessness  of  the  South  is  fast 
rendering  questionable  whether  it  will  be  morally  proper  for  the  North 
to  sanction  by  liberal  largesses,  a  schism  which,  however  desirable, 
if  properly  conducted,  is  evidently  to  be... a  battery  of  unceasing 
hostility  and  abuse  against  ourselves.”  He  does  not  know  but  that 
New  England  from  self  respect  will  have  to  defeat  the  resolutions. 

Later,  editor  Stevens  (“Z.  H.,”  July  17,)  advocated  the  approval 
of  the  property  division,  but  not  of  the  Plan. 

59  See  chapter  VI.  of  the  present  work. 


120  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


would  perpetuate  slavery,  were  influences  tending  in 
the  same  direction.  60 

Two  effective  arguments  frequently  advanced 
remain  to  be  noticed.  It  was  pointed  out  that 
the  removal  of  the  restriction  as  recommended  by 
the  General  Conference  was  permanent  rather  than 
temporary  and  would  affect  the  entire  future  relations 
of  the  Conference  with  the  Book  Concerns,  61  While 
possibly  the  result  of  an  oversight  on  the  part  of  the 
framers  of  the  Plan,  this  consideration  led  many  to  vote 
against  the  recommendation.  The  other  matter  (also 
an  oversight?)  was  that  the  conferences  were  asked 
to  authorize  a  partition  of  the  proceeds  of  the  Book 
Concerns,  while  what  the  Plan  really  contemplated  was 
a  division  of  the  capital.  Whatever  may  be  our 
opinions  on  the  relative  weight  or  influence  of  particu¬ 
lar  arguments,  it  is  clear  that  such  as  they  were  the 
mass  contributed  to  one  concrete  result — the  defeat  of 
the  General  Conference  recommendation. 

In  this  state  of  Methodist  opinion,  what  must  be 
the  attitude  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848  toward 
the  Plan?  Coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before 
them.  We  have  seen  that  Editors  Bond  and  Elliott 
had  gone  over  to  the  ranks  of  the  nullifiers,  the  former 


60  Stevens  voices  the  fear  that  the  new  church  was  to  be  a 
slavery  stronghold.  “Z.  H.,”  July  3,  1844. 

On  the  other  hand  this  fear  had  another  effect  that  tended  to 
neutralize  the  one  mentioned.  The  abolitionists  often  were  willing  to 
vote  the  suspension  of  the  restriction  in  order  to  facilitate  the  sever¬ 
ance  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  slavery  altogether.  This 
influence  may  help  to  account  for  the  favorable  votes  in  New  Eng¬ 
land,  New  York  and  Michigan,  strong  abolition  regions.  Gorrie,  “Hist, 
of  the  M.  E.  Church  in  the  U.  S.,”  111-112. 

61  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  24,  1845.  Letter  of  William  Wickes  ex¬ 
plaining  his  vote  in  the  Baltimore  annual  conference. 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


121 


more  or  less  consistently,  62  the  latter  with  a  somer¬ 
sault  that  amused  his  foes.  In  January,  1846,  Dr. 
Elliott  was  writing  the  Plan  down  as  possessed  of  no 
authority  whatever,  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  officials 
of  the  church  should  act  as  if  it  had  never  existed.  63 
A  year  later  Dr.  Bond  asserted  that  the  next  Conference 
must  repudiate  it  altogether,  that  they  would  not  repeal 
it — for  that  might  be  admitting  some  original  validity 
in  it — but  that  they  would  declare  it  unconstitutional 
and  a  nullity  from  the  first.  64  It  was  evident,  too,  from 
later  developments,  that  the  preachers  were  with  the 
editors  and  that  the  South  was  by  no  means  blind  to 
the  signs  of  the  times.  Perhaps  the  outcome  was  so 
unmistakable  that  Editor  Lee  was  not  quite  such  a 
marvel  as  a  prophet  as  he  seemed  to  be  in  an  editorial 
written  about  the  time  the  General  Conference  of  1848 
was  assembling.  He  had  just  had  a  visit  with  Dr. 
Lovick  Pierce,  the  fraternal  delegate,  elected  by  the 
Southern  General  Conference  of  1846  65  to  attend  that 
of  1848.  As  a  result  he  was  convinced  that  Dr.  Pierce 
would  not  be  received.  From  this  he  concluded  that 
the  Conference  would  refuse  to  confer  with  southern 
representatives  on  the  property  question.  66  The  Plan 
of  Separation  would  then  go  by  the  board,  the  bound¬ 
ary  would  be  erased,  and  to  add  new  streams  of  evil  the 


62  He  was  never  enthusiastic  over  the  Plan. 

63  “W.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  30,  1846. 

64  “C.  A.  and  J„”  Jan.  13  and  April  21,  1847. 

In  January,  1848,  (“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Jan.  12,)  the  editor  asserted 
that  nothing  was  left  of  the  Plan  on  account  of  the  false  interpreta¬ 
tion  attached  to  it  by  the  South,  so  the  North  might  as  well  abolish  it 
as  illegal  from  the  start. 

65  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  100-101. 

66  See  chapter  VII.  of  the  present  work. 


122  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


southern  church  would  be  compelled  to  appeal  to  the 
civil  courts  to  vindicate  her  property  claims.  67 

The  General  Conference  of  1848  assembled  at  Pitts¬ 
burgh,  May  1,  and  was  soon  grappling  with  the  prob¬ 
lems  bequeathed  to  it  by  its  predecessor.  Of  course 
there  were  no  delegates  from  the  southern  conferences, 
but  on  the  third  day  Dr.  Pierce  presented  his  creden¬ 
tials  and  stated  that  he  had  been  appointed  to  bring  to 
it  the  Christian  greetings  of  the  southern  church. 68 
The  Conference  thought  it  unwise  to  enter  just  then 
into  fraternal  relations  with  the  South,  although  it  ex¬ 
tended  to  the  delegate  all  personal  courtesies.  69  Var¬ 
ious  phases  of  the  separation  question  came  up  from 
time  to  time,  but  the  important  one  for  our  present  pur¬ 
pose  was  that  which  concerned  the  validity  of  the  Plan. 
A  committee  of  the  Conference  had  had  the  matter 
under  advisement  for  some  days  and  on  May  24  it  pre¬ 
sented  its  report.  70 

Although  the  Conference  was  overwhelmingly  in 
favor  of  nullifying  the  Plan,  a  notable  debate  on  vari- 


67  “To  this  complexion  it  will  come  at  last,”  he  concluded.  It 
is  a  very  keen,  clear  visioned  but  pessimistic  editorial.  “R.  C.  A.,” 
May  4,  184S. 

68  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  16. 

69  The  report  embodying  this  decision  was  passed  unanimously. 
“Journals,”  III.  (1848),  21-22. 

The  essential  paragraph  is  as  follows  :  “Resolved,  That  while  we 
tender  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pierce  all  personal  courtesies  and  invite  him 
to  attend  our  sessions,  this  General  Conference  does  not  consider  it 
proper  at  present,  to  enter  into  fraternal  relations  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

This  decision  almost  broke  the  heart  of  Editor  Ree.  lie  felt  it 
was  a  great  blow  to  spiritual  Methodism,  and  exemplified  anything 
hut  the  spirit  of  Christ  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
“R.  C.  A.,”  May  18,  1848. 

A  week  later  he  said  he  was  a  much  mistaken  man  if  the  time 
was  not  soon  coming  “when  some  of  the  tribes  of  this  confederacy 
are  constrained  to  cry  out  ‘to  your  tents,  Oh  !  Israel !’  ” 

70  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  68,  73-78,  80-85. 


PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


123 


ous  aspects  of  the  question  occurred.  Three  or  four 
men  from  the  numerically  insignificant  minority 
strongly  stated  their  views.  The  Plan  had  been  en¬ 
acted  in  good  faith  by  Methodist  preachers  for  Metho¬ 
dist  preachers.  It  had  been  approved  by  an  enormous 
majority  of  the  chief  organ  of  American  Methodism. 
It  had  been  accepted  and  acted  upon  in  good  faith  by 
those  for  whom  it  was  intended.  Could  the  church 
now  fairly  repudiate  it?  Perhaps,  as  some  claimed, 
the  Plan  was  unconstitutional,  but  that  was  a  matter 
of  personal  opinion.  71  There  was  no  authority  that 
could  legally  declare  it  invalid.  The  minority  also 
denied  that  its  validity  depended  on  the  votes  of  the 
annual  conferences  with  respect  to  the  sixth  rule  as 
was  sometimes  asserted.  That  vote  had  sole  reference 
to  the  division  of  the  property.  That  the  church  had 
persisted  in  mixing  the  issues  on  this  point,  did  not 
change  the  facts  in  the  case.  Finally,  these  men  denied 
that  the  church  could  act  on  the  supposition  that  the 
necessity  for  separation,  alleged  by  the  South,  had 
never  arisen.  They  recalled  that  the  South  had  been 
expressly  clothed  with  the  right  to  decide  the  question 
of  necessity,  and  insisted  that  the  church  must  not 
take  back  in  1848  what  she  had  given  in  1844.  72 

But  these  views  made  no  impression  on  the  equal¬ 
ly  good  men  who  honestly  believed  that  the  Plan  should 
go.  Strong  men  stepped  forward  to  vindicate  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  majority  who  believed  in  the  right  of  the 
Conference  of  1848  to  judge  whether  the  fundamental 
conditions  upon  which  the  Plan  depended,  had  been 


71  Some  of  tlie  opponents  of  repudiation  believed  the  Plan  illegal 
and  inexpedient. 

72  For  reports  of  the  speeches  containing  these  sentiments  see 
“C.  A.  and  J.,”  June  7,  1848.  For  L.  M.  Lee’s  argument  for  the 
validity  of  the  Plan  see  his  editorial  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  6,  1848. 


124  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


met,  and  whether  its  practical  operation  had  deprived 
any  members  of  the  church  of  their  constitutional 
rights  and  privileges.  They  held  that  if*  it  should 
appear 73  (1)  that  there  had  been  no  necessity  for 
division,  (2)  that  the  South  had  violated  the  Plan,  (3) 
that  the  annual  conferences  had  failed  to  authorize  a 
division  of  the  property,  or  (4)  that  its  workings  de¬ 
prived  worthy  people  of  their  rights  as  members  of  the 
church,  then  it  would  not  only  be  right  but  necessary 
for  the  Conference  to  revoke  or  nullify  the  Plan.  74 
These  views  won  and  by  a  very  large  majority  the  Plan 
was  declared  null  and  void.  75  The  feat  was  accomp¬ 
lished.  The  billowing  tide  of  opposition  had  embodied 
itself  in  a  concrete  declaration  against  the  great  act 
of  1844.  What  judgment,  if  any,  must  we  pass  upon 
this  repudiation? 

While  it  is  easy  to  explain  the  action  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  justify  it.  True, 
the  church  loved  its  unity  and  power.  It  was  a  pity 


73  No  doubt  existed  in  the  minds  of  the  majority  that  these  con¬ 
tingencies  had  arisen. 

74  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  19,  1848.  Dr.  Peck  summarized  these 
views  in  an  editorial  in  this  issue.  (He  had  been  elected  by  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848  to  succeed  Dr.  Bond  as  editor.) 

The  views  of  the  majority  are  more  extensively  set  forth  in  the 
report  of  the  Conference  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church, 
printed  in  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  appendix  H. 

75  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  85.  The  declaration  that  it  was 
null  and  void  was  carried  with  only  nine  votes  in  the  negative.  The 
largest  opposition  vote  on  any  item  in  the  set  of  resolutions  was  15. 
The  rise  and  fall  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  like  the  experiences  in 
connection  with  the  Andrew  case,  bore  results  which  embedded  them¬ 
selves  in  the  legal  principles  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  To¬ 
day  it  is  expressly  declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  Methodist  constitu¬ 
tion,  either  to  cut  off  members  without  trial  or  to  divide  the  church. 
Cooke,  “Judic.  Decisions,”  104-105,  (1908). 

For  a  good  modern  southern  discussion  of  the  legal  points  in¬ 
volved  in  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  Plan  see  Tigert,  “Const. 
Ilist.,”  revised  and  enlarged,  appendix  IV. 


PLAN  OP  SEPARATION  REPUDIATED 


125 


to  disrupt  such  a  mighty  aggregation  of  Christians. 
True,  the  patience  of  northern  Methodists  had  been 
Sorely  tried  by  the  bitterness  of  southern  partisans. 
True,  some  in  the  South  adopted  too  selfish  an  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  boundary  provisions  of  the  Plan.  76 
It  may  be  true,  that  in  the  long  run  repudiation  worked 
good  rather  than  harm  in  simplifying  the  situation  for 
both  branches  of  American  Episcopal  Methodists.  Nay, 
even  while  we  admit  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that 
the  Conference  of  1848  had  a  strict  legal  right  to 
nullify  the  Plan,  still  we  find  it  impossible  to  con¬ 
template  its  act  with  complete  approval.  The  Plan 
was  a  Wonderful  exhibition  of  Christian  charity,  mani¬ 
fested  in  a  situation  as  baffling  as  any  that  ever  con¬ 
fronted  a  great  religious  assembly.  In  that  sense  the 
Plan  was  the  glory  of  a  self-sacrificing  church.  In 
agreeing  to  it  the  church  followed  closely  in  the  foot¬ 
steps  of  its  Head.  When  removed  from  the  mellowing 
influences  of  that  trying  session  the  North  took  a  more 
cold-blooded  view  of  the  issue ;  northern  Methodists 
concluded  that  their  delegates  had  gone  too  far.  Re¬ 
pudiation  was  born  and  grew  lustily.  If  the  southern¬ 
ers  wished  to  leave  let  them  leave  as  seceders.  This 
feeling  marked  a  violent  reaction  from  the  noble  ex¬ 
pressions  and  acts  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 
Then  in  1848  when  the  partner  most  vitally  interested 
in  the  Plan  was  unrepresented,  the  other  half  of  the 
supposedly  dissolved  partnership,  assuming  to  act  as 
judge  in  its  own  case,  declared  the  act  sanctioning  dis¬ 
solution  unconstitutional,  null  and  void  from  the  start. 
Admitting  the  difficulties  of  the  problem,  and  speak¬ 
ing  in  all  charity,  we  cannot  help  feeling  that  it  was 
a  mistake  to  repudiate  the  Plan  of  Separation. 


76  See  next  chapter. 


Chapter  VI 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  necessary  to  refer 
frequently  to  the  boundary  controversy  that  sprang  up 
along  the  tentative  dividing  line  established  by  the 
Plan  of  Separation  between  the  two  sections.  It  is 
now  time  to  study  this  phase  of  the  subject  more  syste¬ 
matically.  In  regard  to  the  border  the  Plan  laid  down 
three  fundamental  principles. 1  (1)  The  line  between 

the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  conferences 
should  be  the  starting  point  for  all  adjustments  pro¬ 
vided  for  in  the  Plan.  (2)  Societies,  stations  and  con¬ 
ferences  on  this  line,  should,  by  vote,  choose  the  church 
to  which  they  would  adhere,  and  when  this  choice  had 
been  made,  neither  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  nor 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  might  exercise 
any  jurisdiction  within  the  bounds  of  the  other.  And 
(3)  this  power  of  choice  should  belong  only  to  the 
units  on  the  border. 

The  trouble  which  this  arrangement  was  likely  to 
provoke  was  clearly  foreseen  and  pointed  out  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1844.  For  example,  Dr.  Bond 
expressed  his  wonder  that  the  committee  should  pro¬ 
pose  such  a  boundary,  for  it  would  foster  strife  from 
Delaware  to  the  Ohio  River.  Several  conferences  in¬ 
cluded  both  free  and  slave  territory,  and  they  were 
sure  to  be  torn  by  bitter  strife.  Since  the  Conference 
must  abridge  rights  in  any  case,  let  it  fix  the  line  once 


1  For  the  provisions  in  full  see  appendix  II. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


127 


for  all  on  the  existing  conference  boundaries.  2  The 
doctor’s  pessimistic  predictions  proved  only  too  true, 
for  within  a  year  after  he  had  spoken  the  border  quar¬ 
rel  was  rocking  the  churches. 

When  we  read  the  claims  and  counterclaims  of 
the  parties  as  their  differences  grew  warmer,  we  are 
depressed  anew  by  the  obvious  impossibility  of  either 
side  appreciating,  even  in  the  slightest  degree,  the 
position  of  the  other.  The  South  unquestioningly  be¬ 
lieved  that  the  North  was  consciously,  openly,  wilfully 
and  maliciously  infringing  the  plain  provisions  of  the 
Plan  of  Separation  regarding  the  boundary;  and  the 
North  was  equally  confident  that  the  South  was  guilty 
of  similar  wickedness.  Hence  each  kept  printing 
certificates  of  character  for  the  other  based  on  this 
distorted  view  of  the  facts.  3  From  the  calmer  stand- 


2  “Debates,”  224.  A  glance  at  the  map  will  show  how  the  con¬ 
ference  boundaries  cut  across  state  lines. 

3  Here  is  a  specimen  opinion  held  concerning  members  of  the 
Church,  South,  by  the  Kanawha  Quarterly  conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

It  resolved,  “That  we  are  deeply  pained  and  mortified,  that  the 
name  of  Methodism  has  been  so  stained  by  the  unchristian  and  the 
immoral  means  used  or  sanctioned  by  some  of  the  adherents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  among  us,  to  effect  their  ambitious 
project  of  pulling  down  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  build  up 
a  pro-slavery  Church,  and  we  can  not  hereafter  have  fellowship  with 
those  of  them  known  by  us  to  have  been  engaged  in  this  business, 
either  actively  or  approvingly,  until  we  have  evidence  of  their  con¬ 
trition  and  reformation.”  “W.  C.  A.,”  June  19,  1846. 

On  the  other  hand  a  committee  of  the  southern  General  Confer¬ 
ence  (1846)  reported,  that  the  Ohio  and  Illinois  conferences  de¬ 
liberately  violated  the  provisions  of  the  Plan.  “In  at  least  two  in¬ 
stances,  Presiding  Elders,  belonging  to  those  Conferences,  have  in¬ 
vaded  the  Southern  border,  and  sent  preachers  to  dissatisfied  minori¬ 
ties  of  societies.  . .  .  And  thxis  the  wise  and  pacific  policy  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  has  been  impugned,  and  its  purposes 
thwarted.  And,  finally,  to  cover  these  revolutionary  procedures  a 
hue  and  cry  has  been  all  the  while  kept  up  against  the  Episcopal  ad¬ 
ministration  of  the  South.  To  say  that  we  are  utterly  surprised, 
and  deeply  mortified  at  the  course  which  things  have  taken  in 


128  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

point  possible  today  it  becomes  evident  that  in  very 
few  cases  did  either  North  or  South  resort  to  deliberate 
misrepresentation  and  deception  to  gain  its  ends. 
Looked  at  from  its  own  angle  of  vision,  pre¬ 
supposing  the  ideas,  standards  and  unconscious  local 
interest  which  each  side  brought  to  the  determination 
of  specific  border  disputes,  it  is  obvious  that  there  was 
no  more  double-dealing  than  appears  in  other  and  less 
exciting  human  differences.  Before  taking  up  the 
facts  in  any  one  of  the  local  controversies,  let  us  look 
for  a  moment  at  some  of  the  divergent  interpretations 
which  conditioned  the  local  quarrels.  The  Plan  of 
Separation  stated  how  the  boundary  should  be  run. 
What  did  that  statement  mean?  How  should  it  be 
applied?  It  was  capable  of  more  than  one  interpre¬ 
tation. 

The  North  held  that  circuits  were  not  included 
among  the  favored  units  of  a  conference  that  were  per¬ 
mitted  freely  to  choose  their  section.  Men  said  that  the 
Plan  studiously  avoided  naming  them  in  every  enum¬ 
eration  of  the  favored  divisions.  Only  conferences, 
societies,  and  stations  were  meant,  just  as  it  said. * * *  4  To 
this  the  South  answered  that  circuits  certainly  were 
included  because  in  Methodist  usage,  circuits,  stations 
and  societies  were  synonymous  expressions.  No  single 
society,  except  it  be  a  station,  is  a  pastoral  charge  to 
the  exclusion  of  other  units  in  the  circuit.  The  entire 
circuit  is  a  single  charge.  5  Another  question  arose  as 


reference  to  this  subject,  is  but  feebly  to  express  the  emotions  pro¬ 

duced  by  a  view  of  the  facts  in  the  premises.  ...”  “Journals,  South,” 

(1846),  53. 

4  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  acted  on  this 
view  at  their  meeting  Mar.  3,  1847.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Mar.  24,  1847. 

5  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  50-51;  “R.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  21,  1847 
(editorial). 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


129 


to  whether  northern  conferences  on  the  border  must 
definitely  vote  to  adhere  to  the  North  or  to  the  South 
in  order  to  comply  with  the  Plan.  The  South  was  sure 
that  it  was  forbidden  to  plant  churches  north  of  the 
line  of  division  only  when  the  territory  in  question  had 
formally  voted  to  adhere  to  the  North.  6  This  was  their 
sole  justification  for  entering  a  place  like  Cincinnati 
for  instance.  Their  opponents  replied  that  the  Plan 
correctly  understood,  did  not  require  the  territory  out¬ 
side  the  slaveholding  conferences  to  vote  at  all.  If  the 
northern  units  of  the  southern  border  conferences 
wished  to  make  their  choice  by  vote,  well  and  good, 
but  the  southern  units  of  the  northern  border  con¬ 
ferences  were  not  required  to  vote  on  the  question  of 
adherence.  7  If  they  did  nothing  their  northern  loyalty 
would  be  presumed.  8 

Dr.  Elliott  propounded  an  interpretation  which 
succeeded  at  least  in  amusing  the  South.  He  said  that 
in  order  for  a  conference  to  separate  legally  two  dis- 


6  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  23,  1846.  “Law  and  Order”  writing  in  this 
paper  expressed  the  idea  summarized  in  the  text.  It  was  accepted  by 
the  General  Conference,  South,  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  48-49.  In 
“S.  C.  A.,”  (copied  into  “W.  C.  A.,”  May  8,  1846),  the  editor  sanc¬ 
tioned  the  same  interpretation,  adding :  “it  being  understood  that  the 
ministry  of  the  South,  reciprocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation 
to  stations,  societies,  and  conferences,  adhering  by  a  vote  of  a  ma¬ 
jority  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  He  thought  that  Ohio 
being  a  border  conference  and  having  refused  to  vote  one  way  or  the 
other  was  open  to  southern  colonization.  See  also  “Sw.  C.  A.”  clip¬ 
ping,  Feb.  20,  1846,  in  Elliott’s  “Scrapbook,”  IV.  204. 

This  southern  interpretation  seems  inconsistent  with  a  resolution 
passed  in  the  Convention  of  1845  (“Official  Hist.”  206)  which  says 
societies  and  stations  south  of  the  line  named  in  the  Plan  would  be 
assumed  to  belong  South,  if  they  neglected  to  vote. 

7  Some  Methodists  believed  that  the  smaller  units  north  of  the 
line  could  not,  under  the  Plan,  vote  to  go  South,  that  the  voting 
privilege  was  confined  to  the  southern  units. 

8  See  letter  of  “Junius,”  “C.  A.  and  J<,”  Nov.  5,  1845. 

See  Dr,  Bond’s  ridicule  of  these  southern  interpretations,  “C.  A. 
and  J.,”  Jan.  13,  1847. 


130  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


tinct  sets  of  decisions  must  be  made.  First,  the  lay 
members  in  all  the  societies  of  the  conference  must 
vote  affirmatively  on  the  proposal,  and  secondly,  the 
preachers  must  agree,  voting  as  a  conference.  9  The 
two  parties  also  differed  on  the  minor  point  of  a  time 
limit  after  the  expiration  of  which  voting  to  change  de¬ 
nominational  allegiance  could  no  longer  be  allowed. 10 

Another  moot  question  was,  What  is  a  border 
society,  and  what  is  an  interior  society?  Is  the  line 
relatively  fixed  or  can  it  change  indefinitely  by  so¬ 
cieties,  once  interior,  becoming  border  through  the  ad¬ 
herence  of  the  original  border  society  to  the  other 
church  ?  For  instance,  a  border  society  A  in  a  northern 
conference  might  vote  to  join  the  southern  connection. 
Would  that  make  its  neighbor  B  immediately  to  the 
north  a  border  society  with  the  privilege  of  choosing 
under  the  Plan?  And  if  B  adhered  South  could  its 
neighbor  C  still  further  north  then  take  its  place  as  a 
border  society  or  unit  claiming  border  rights,  and  so  on 
indefinitely? 

The  North  thought  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  ap¬ 
plied  only  to  the  first  unit  on  either  side  (some,  we 
noted,  said  only  the  south  side).  The  first  society  or 


9  For  the  Doctor’s  idea  fully  elaborated  see  “W.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  22, 
1845. 

Often  the  South  thought  it  detected  serious  inconsistencies  in  the 
attitude  of  the  North  on  this  border  question.  The  North  insisted 
that  the  South  conform  strictly  to  the  Plan,  while  the  North  made  no 
secret  of  its  own  intention  to  repudiate  the  Plan  at  the  first  oppor¬ 
tunity.  “In  a  case  of  litigation,”  continued  the  editor  of  the  “Sw. 
C.  A.,”  “before  a  civil  tribunal,  a  party  would  hardly  be  permitted 
with  one  breath  to  repudiate  the  authority  of  a  given  law,  and  the 
next  to  bring  up  that  same  law  to  operate  against  the  adverse  party.” 
“Sw.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  20,  1846. 

10  See  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  14,  1845  ;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Mar.  24,  1847 
(view  of  the  bishops).  See  also  the  Harmony  Church  case  below. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


131 


station  or  conference  could  choose  and  that  ended  it. 11 
The  South  was  sure  that  southern  units  could  choose 
a  northern  affiliation  one  after  another  until  stopped 
by  some  unit  voting  to  adhere  to  the  South,  and  that 
the  northern  border  societies  similarly  could  vote  to  go 
with  the  South  until  stopped  by  some  society  voting  to 
cast  in  its  fortunes  with  the  North. 12 

As  in  the  case  of  the  dispute  respecting  the  con¬ 
stitutionality  of  the  Plan  as  a  whole  there  was  no 
recognized  authority  which  could  decide  once  for  all 
the  correct  interpretation  of  the  border  provisions.  So 
the  theoretical  conflict  continued  without  hope  of  an 
authoritative  solution.  Each  stuck  gallantly  to  his 
chosen  view.  Neither  side  could  convince  the  other. 
Hence  honest,  well-meaning  men  unable  to  appreciate 
the  grounds  upon  which  their  opponents  acted,  came 
to  believe  each  other  dishonorable,  and  a  disgrace  to 
Methodism  and  Christianity. 13  Possibly  Dr.  Bond  had 
been  right.  Possibly  the  fixing  of  the  boundary  defi¬ 
nitely  along  existing  conference  lines  would  have  pre¬ 
vented  much  hard  feeling. 

There  were  almost  innumerable  local  quarrels  in 
connection  with  this  border  controversy 14  but  they 
were  most  violent  in  three  or  four  districts.  Eastern 
Virginia,  or  the  territory  along  Chesapeake  Bay ;  west- 


11  Editorial  comment  on  the  letter  of  “A  Local  Preacher”  in  “C. 
A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  4,  1846. 

12  This  was  the  capital  contention  of  the  whole  boundary 
controversy.  It  had  less  practical  significance  than  some  others  but 
it  filled  a  large  place  in  the  religious  press. 

The  point  appears  very  clearly  for  instance  in  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Feb. 
20,  1846. 

13  For  an  official  summary  of  several  of  these  theories  see 
“Journals,  South,”  (1846),  47-54;  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  appendix  I. 

14  The  newspapers  are  the  chief  sources  of  information  for 
these  local  quarrels,  and  it  often  happens  that  one  report  flatly  con¬ 
tradicts  another.  By  sticking  to  the  statements  of  fact  about  which 


132  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


ern  Virginia;  St.  Louis  and  vicinity;  Cincinnati,  Ohio; 
and  Maysville,  Ky.,  were  especially  strife  torn.  The 
bitterest  animosity  developed  on  the  Eastern  shore,  or 
the  peninsula  of  Virginia,  including  Accomac  and 
Northampton  counties. 15  The  struggle  took  various 
forms.  Sometimes  it  arose  from  differences  of  local 
opinion  as  to  the  legality  or  fairness  of  meetings  called 
to  decide  northern  or  southern  affiliation ;  sometimes  it 
arose  over  the  rights  of  a  given  society  to  act  on  that 
question ;  sometimes  it  focussed  on  a  legal  fight  for  the 
ownership  of  the  church  building  and  parsonage ;  and 
sometimes  non-Methodists  mixed  in  the  frays  and  com¬ 
plicated  them,  especially  where  the  pro-slavery  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  strong 
owing  to  its  alleged  abolitionist  tendencies.  In  the 
latter  form  the  local  conflicts  simply  offered  a  con¬ 
venient  storm  cradle  for  the  broader  political  agitation 
of  the  day. 

A  typical  case  will  bring  concretely  before  the 
reader  the  situation  in  this  eastern  region.  The  Metho¬ 
dist  Church  in  Salem,  a  small  place  on  the  Eastern 
shore,  was  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Rev.  Valentine 
Gray.  These  peninsula  Methodists  had  been  torn 
for  months  by  the  quarrels  of  factions  working  for 
the  North  or  the  South.  Both  theories  and  interests 
clashed. 16  A  turbulent  element  outside  the  church 


both  sides  agreed,  it  is  believed  that  the  accounts  given  in  the  text 
are  reasonably  accurate.  Though  the  material  is  often  scrappy  and 
always  controversial,  it  would  never  do  to  omit  these  sidelights,  on 
which  there  is  as  much  material  now  avaialble  as  there  ever  will  be. 

15  On  the  mainland  the  three  counties  of  Westmoreland,  Lan¬ 
caster,  King  George,  and  the  villages  of  Warrenton  and  Fayetteville 
in  Fauquier  County,  were  involved  as  well  as  some  others,  but  to  a 
less  degree.  As  a  rule  the  conflicts  did  not  grow  serious  until  after 
the  Louisville  Convention,  1845. 

16  On  the  whole  the  peninsula  Methodists  seemed  to  be  loyal  to 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  In  August,  1847,  that  church  still 
refused  to  admit  that  more  than  one  of  its  societies  in  that  part  of 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


133 


was  trying  to  force  the  hands  of  the  loyal  members 
and  compel  them  to  join  the  South.  This  element 
used  mob  violence  at  Salem.  On  Saturday,  July 
11,  1846,  Pastor  Gray  met  a  man  from  near  Salem 
who  told  him  that  trouble  was  brewing  there  for 
the  preacher  the  next  day.  When  he  reached  Salem 
Sunday  morning  he  found  this  to  be  true,  for  there 
was  an  unusual  crowd  around  the  church.  Members 
of  the  congregation  told  Gray  that  they  feared  trouble. 
He  decided  to  proceed  with  the  regular  services  after 
the  Sunday  school  closed,  but  had  scarcely  started 
when  the  leaders  of  the  mob  entered  the  building, 
approached  the  pulpit  and  ordered  him  to  leave. 
He  refused,  and  after  some  parley,  they  seized  him 
by  the  coat  and  hair,  and  dragged  him  out  of  the 
meeting  house.  He  was  ordered  to  leave  the  place 
and  not  to  return  or  the  consequences  would  be 
serious.  The  next  day  he  went  to  Eastville  where  the 
county  court  was  in  session,  in  order  to  seek  redress. 
While  in  the  court  house  he  was  ordered  by  some  of  the 
mob  to  leave  the  vicinity  within  fifteen  minutes.  He 
asked  for  more  time  and  they  allowed  him  an  hour. 
Thus  he  was  driven  off  without  redress  or  protection. 17 


Accomac  County  attached  to  the  Northampton  circuit,  had  joined  the 
new  connection.  See  preamble  and  resolutions  from  Northampton,  Phil¬ 
adelphia  conference  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  6,  1847.  Later  there  were 
evident  differences  of  opinion  as  to  what  these  societies  had  done. 
See  letter  of  B.  H.  Johnson  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  24,  1848,  for  some 
certificates  purporting  to  tell  when  and  how  various  societies  voted. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  also  inclined  to  ridicule  the 
southern  claim  that  the  Eastern  shore  was  border  territory.  It  was 
divided  from  the  Virginia  conference  of  the  southern  connection  by  35 
miles  of  water.  Why,  they  asked,  if  this  is  border,  is  not  Nantucket 
also  border,  as  only  a  water  boundary  separates  it  from  Virginia? 
(Editorial  footnote  to  Gray’s  letter  “C.  A.  and  J.t”  Oct.  21,  1846.) 

17  See  his  calm  letter  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  21,  1846.  It  should 
be  read  in  full  to  get  the  true  spirit  of  the  occasion. 


134  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


The  mob  represented  the  common  belief  that  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church  was  an  abolitionist  church  and 
dangerous  to  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  the  South. 

A  few  weeks  later  a  similar  act  of  violence  occur¬ 
red  at  Guilford  in  Accomac  county.  When  Rev.  James 
Hargis  was  in  the  midst  of  his  sermon  at  that  place,  a 
mob  compelled  him  to  stop  by  shooting,  throwing 
stones  at  the  building  and  shouting.  He  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  leave  the  church  without  violence  but  was 
warned  that  if  he  returned  he  would  be  ducked  in  a 
neighboring  pond.  The  grand  jury,  though  cogniz¬ 
ant  of  the  facts,  refused  him  any  redress. 18  This  sug¬ 
gests  the  atmosphere  on  the  eastern  end  of  the  long 


18  See  letter  of  one  of  Mr.  Hargis’  parishioners  in  “C.  A.  and 
J.,”  Jan.  6,  1847. 

In  the  spring  of  1847  a  similar  outburst  of  mob  violence  in 
Accomac  County  resulted  somewhat  differently.  Rev.  James  Brindle 
was  disturbed  at  his  appointment  at  Bruton’s  Chapel.  By  quick 
work  his  friends  got  him  into  the  building,  and  the  baffled  mob  went 
away  to  gather  increased  strength  and  return  the  following  Sunday 
at  his  next  appointment  (Garrison’s  Chapel).  There  was  plenty  of 
excitement  through  the  week  and  bloodshed  was  feared.  Again, 
however,  the  mob  was  outwitted.  The  Methodists  had  gathered  a 
crowd  much  larger  than  the  mob  could  muster,  and  at  the  critical 
moment  the  mob  dispersed  without  doing  any  damage.  See  letter  from 
Northampton  Circuit,  quoted  in  editorial,  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  19, 
1847. 

By  autumn  the  opposition  had  grown  so  strong  that  Mr.  Brindle’s 
own  flock  reluctantly  advised  him  for  his  own  safety  to  leave  the 
circuit.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  6,  1847. 

Incidentally  there  is  some  evidence  that  as  time  went  on  the 
southern  church  was  making  conquests  in  this  region.  See  resolutions 
against  the  ideas  of  “Anti-Secessionist”  passed  in  Gloucester  circuit, 
Baltimore  conference,  and  published  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  March  20,  1845  ; 
also  the  Eastville  circuit,  Philadelphia  conference,  resolutions  in  reply 
to  the  Methodist  bishops’  decision  as  to  the  correct  eastern  boundary 
of  the  Va.  conference,  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  June  3,  1847  ;  and  resolutions  of 
affiliation  with  the  South  passed  by  the  Fredericksburg,  Va.,  society 
and  published  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  24,  1848.  The  determined  southern 
stand  of  King  George  circuit,  Baltimore  conference,  is  seen  in  resolu¬ 
tions  printed  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  May  6,  1847. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


135 


boundary.  The  spirit  of  the  conflict  was  significant 
of  the  political  controversy  then  rising  between  the 
sections.  It  also  affords  a  more  adequate  explanation 
of  the  repudiation  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1848. 

In  western  Virginia  the  situation  was  such  as  to 
make  that  region  the  real  “dark  and  bloody  ground” 
of  the  church  conflict.  Its  political  and  economic 
relations  to  the  rest  of  the  state,  its  comparative  free¬ 
dom  from  slavery,  its  border  character,  and  its  terri¬ 
torial  distribution  among  Methodist  conferences  19  com¬ 
bined  to  make  it  a  district  where  differences  would 
be  acute  and  complex. 20  As  the  ecclesiastical  con¬ 
troversy  raged  we  are  not  surprised  to  see  the  very 
significant  suggestion  made  and  advocated  that  west¬ 
ern  Virginia  should  disconnect  itself  from  the  ex¬ 
tremists  of  both  sides,  and  establish  an  annual  con¬ 
ference  of  its  own  extending  from  the  Blue  Ridge  to 
the  Ohio  River 21  a  prophecy  of  the  new  state  to  be 
born  into  the  Union  there  during  the  Civil  War.  With¬ 
out  doubt  the  religious  schism  intensified  the  existing 
sectional  feeling  in  Virginia  and  paved  the  way  for  the 
new  state  of  West  Virginia.  21a 


19  See  letter  from  “A  Friend  of  Peace,”  Barboursville,  Cabell 
County,  Va.,  in  ‘‘R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  7,  1845. 

20  For  a  brief  analysis  of  opinion  in  that  area,  see  communi¬ 
cation  by  "W”  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  7,  1845. 

21  Quoted  from  the  “Lynchburg  Virginian”  in  the  “Kanawha 
Valley  Star”  and  copied  from  that  paper  into  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  17, 
1845.  The  suggestion  was  made  by  the  “Kanawha  Republican”  and 
the  editors  of  the  “Star”  and  the  “Virginian”  both  expressed  the  hope 
that  Virginia  would  not  be  divided. 

A  western  Virginia  annual  conference  was  formed  in  1848  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Journals,”  III.  (1848),  97-98. 

21a  Ambler,  “Sectionalism  in  Virginia,”  298-99. 


136  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Parkersburg  22  in  the  Ohio  conference  was  a  focal 
point  of  discontent.  The  region  up  and  down  the 
Ohio  River  from  that  place,  and  the  Great  Kanawha 
and  the  Little  Kanawha  River  valleys  also  experienced 
much  agitation.  Mob  violence  paralleled  the  similar 
outbreaks  in  the  east.  The  question  of  affiliation 
North  or  South  came  up  at  Parkersburg,  and  was 
decided  in  favor  of  the  South.  Two  meetings  were 
held.  At  the  second  six  resolutions  were  passed,  the 
most  significant  one  of  which  (approving  the  Louisville 
Convention)  passed  by  a  vote  of  45  to  17.  This  was 
a  small  vote  and  a  house  to  house  canvass  later,  under¬ 
taken  by  the  minister  in  charge,  23  indicated  102  mem¬ 
bers  favoring  the  South  and  82  the  North.  24  When 
Mr.  Brown  went  to  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Ohio 
annual  conference  in  1845  he  reported  the  society  as 
about  equally  divided,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
faction  as  desirous  of  a  preacher  as  usual.  The  Rev. 
John  Dillon  was  sent,  and  his  arrival  added  to  the 
existing  excitement.  An  old  board  of  trustees  was 
called  together,  some  members  of  which,  it  was  alleged, 
were  not  at  the  time  connected  with  the  church. 25 
This  board  refused  to  receive  a  preacher  from  the  Ohio 
conference,  and  closed  the  church  against  Mr.  Dillon. 
But  he  forced  an  entrance  in  spite  of  the  hostile  crowd, 
and  preached.  Next  day  an  indignation  meeting  of 
the  citizens  was  held,  which  appointed  a  committee  of 


22  Parkersburg  reported  207  white  members  in  Sept.  1844. 
“Minutes  of  the  annual  conferences,”  III.  (1839-1845),  515. 

23  Rev.  Arza  Brown  of  the  Ohio  conference — a  friend  of  the 
North. 

24  Eleven  others  voted  to  remain  as  they  were. 

25  These  boards  of  trustees  seem  often  to  have  been  rather 
somnambulent  bodies,  which  after  regular  Rip  van  Winkle  slumbers 
suddenly  awoke  in  times  of  crisis,  and  under  new  circumstances 
plagued  the  church  they  purported  to  serve,  or  at  least  plagued  some 
faction  in  it. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


137 


sixty  to  wait  on  Mr.  Dillon  and  order  him  out  of  town. 
The  preacher  deemed  it  wise  to  obey.  His  predeces¬ 
sor,  Mr.  Brown,  who  returned  to  get  his  family  was 
threatened  with  a  coat  of  tar  and  feathers,  but  he  man 
aged  to  escape  before  the  humiliating  garb  was  quite 
ready  for  use.  26 

This  region  well  illustrated  that  southern  theory 
of  the  Plan  of  Separation  which  would  permit  society 
after  society  to  become  border  territory  with  the  right 
to  choose  its  affiliation  until  stopped  by  some  society 
voting  to  affiliate  with  the  other  connection.  On  the 
theory  accepted  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
Parkersburg  could  not  possibly  be  border  territory 
for  it  was  situated  seventy-five  miles  from  the  border. 
The  South  asserted  that  one  society  after  another,  be¬ 
ginning  at  the  original  border,  had  adhered  to  the  new 
connection,  so  that  Parkersburg  had  become  thereby 
border  territory  and  possessed  of  the  right  to  choose. 
The  same  charge  and  defence  were  used  in  regard  to 
the  Guyandotte  society.  27  Years  of  turmoil  were  to 


26  See  “Marietta  Intelligencer”  accounts,  reprinted  in  “W.  C. 
A.,”  Oct.  3,  1845.  See  also  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  10,  31,  1845. 

27  For  arguments,  assertions,  charges  and  countercharges  on 
the  legality  of  action  by  the  parties  in  western  Virginia,  see  the  fol¬ 
lowing :  “N.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  28,  1846  (depositions  regarding  the  taking 
of  the  votes  on  affiliation  in  the  Kanawha  district)  ;  “R.  C.  A.,” 
Aug.  24,  1848  (Is  Parkersburg  a  border  station? — letter  of  W.  D.  T.)  ; 
“R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  3,  1848  (letter  correcting  the  Report  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  respecting  the  Leesburg, 
Va.,  vote  of  affiliation  ;  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  7,  1845  (editorial  on  the 
southern  affiliation  of  Guyandotte  circuit)  ;  the  same  subject  is  dis¬ 
cussed  in  a  letter  by  “Old  Guyandotte”  in  “Ibid.,”  Mar.  13,  1846 ; 
68  “Niles  Register,”  360,  Aug.  9,  1845  (evidences  of  strong  Methodist 
(North)  feeling  in  Guyandotte,  Walnut  Grove,  and  Longbranch  in  the 
Kanawha  district)  ;  68  “Ibid.,”  334,  July  26,  1845  (strong  northern 
feeling  in  Wytheville,  Va.,  and  in  Tazewell,  Russell  and  Scott  counties, 
in  southwestern  Virginia)  ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  7,  1845  (letter  from 
“Friend  of  Peace”  illustrating  northern  feeling  in  western  Virginia)  ; 
“Journals,”  III.  (1848),  appendix  I.  (infractions  of  the  Plan)  ;  “Jour¬ 
nals,  South,”  (1846),  47-54  (justification  of  southern  border  policy). 


138  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


ensue  before  anything  like  equilibrium  could  be  reached 
in  this  distracted  corner  of  Zion.  28 

The  situation  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  a  border  city, 
caused  the  spilling  of  much  contentious  ink.  Here 
again  one  cannot  feel  safe  in  speaking  dogmatically  as 
to  all  the  facts.  Nevertheless,  it  illustrated  further  the 
nature  and  possibilities  of  the  strife.  The  particular 
issue  concerned  the  legality  of  the  establishment  of  a 
society  of  the  southern  church  at  Soule  Chapel.  As 
Methodism  had  flourished  in  the  city,  new  societies  had 
been  formed  to  accommodate  the  membership.  In  1844 
a  city  missionary  was  appointed  ‘  ‘  to  carry  the  Gospel  to 
the  destitute .”  By  permission  he  exercised  pastoral 
authority  over  the  three  small  societies  formed  shortly 
previous.  New  chapels  were  built  for  two  of  them. 
In  1845  the  missionary,  G.  W.  Maley,  was  reappointed, 
but  his  pastoral  activities  were  to  be  confined  to  Maley 
Chapel.  This  limitation  was  put  upon  him  by  the 
decision  of  a  post-conference  council,  and  as  the  bishop 
had  to  hurry  away  it  was  left  for  the  presiding  elder, 
Michael  Marley,  to  inform  Mr.  Maley.  Some  three  or 
four  weeks  later  the  city  missionary  board  at  an  in¬ 
formal  meeting  gave  Maley  leave  to  preach  in  Vine 
Street  Church,  an  old,  deserted  edifice  in  the  heart  of 
the  city.  He  received  no  episcopal  permission  to  form  a 
society,  but  there  was  evidently  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  just  what  authority  he  had  received.  A  number 
of  Cincinnati  Methodists  obtained  transfer  certificates 
and  joined  Maley ’s  Vine  Street  group  which,  when  it 
had  grown  to  ninety-eight  members,  voted  unanimously 
to  adhere  to  the  South.  The  proper  papers  were  pre- 


28  The  friction  resulted  in  a  lowering  of  the  religious  tone  of 
western  Virginia,  a  fact  which  was  mourned  by  earnest  men  discussing 
the  situation.  See  letter  to  editor,  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  6,  1848. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


139 


sented  to  Bishop  Andrew,  who,  believing  the  change 
perfectly  regular,  recognized  it  as  a  society  of  the 
southern  church  under  the  name  “Vine  Street  charge, 
a  border  society.”  It  proceeded  then  to  buy  a  meeting 
house  29  in  the  heart  of  the  Wesley  Chapel  charge,  thus 
placing  itself  in  such  a  geographical  position  in  the 
city  that  the  Bethel  charge  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  separated  it  from  the  border. 

Regarding  these  complicated  movements  the  North 
held  (1)  that  Mr.  Maley  had  acted  irregularly  as  a 
Methodist  preacher  in  forming  a  society  at  Vine  Street, 
(2)  that  he  had  no  official  authority  to  use  Vine 
Street  Chapel  for  anything  but  preaching,  and  (3)  that 
the  society  not  being  on  the  border  could  not,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Plan,  select  its  denominational  home.  It  is 
evident  that  there  was  chance  for  misunderstanding  on 
the  first  two  points,  since  the  action  of  the  post-con¬ 
ference  council  limiting  Maley ’s  charge  geographically 
was  not  directly  communicated  to  him ;  and,  regarding 
the  use  of  the  Vine  Street  house,  it  was  quite  possible 
that  the  informal  action  of  the  local  missionary  board 
had  been  misinterpreted.  Let  us  note  that  in  Cin¬ 
cinnati  we  have  an  application  of  that  aggressive 
southern  interpretation  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  which 
allowed  the  South  to  enter  any  unit  north  of  the  tenta¬ 
tive  line  which  had  neglected  to  declare  its  continued 
allegiance  to  the  old  church.  Since  the  Ohio  con¬ 
ference  had  omitted  to  do  this,  it  was  therefore  legally 
open  to  southern  enterprise.  It  would  not  matter  to 
the  South  whether  Soule  Chapel  was  a  border  unit  or 
not.  Thus,  though  relatively  a  small  affair,  the  Cin¬ 
cinnati  wrangle  clearly  illustrated  some  of  the  cross- 


29  Soule  Chapel  ( ?) 


140  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


currents  of  opinion  on  the  boundary  provisions  of  the 
Plan.  30 

At  St.  Louis,  31  Mo.,  and  Alexandria,  32  Va.,  notable 
dissensions  arose  but  they  bring  nothing  new  to  the 
picture  already  before  us.  Incidents  of  a  different 
character  that  illustrated  the  bitter  feelings  of  the  time 
were  the  presentments  of  “The  Western  Christian  Ad¬ 
vocate’  *  and  “The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal” 
by  grand  juries,  with  the  object  of  prohibiting  their 
circulation  in  certain  counties.33  With  this  passing 
reference  we  shall  leave  these  episodes  and  close  the 


30  The  foregoing  account  of  the  Cincinnati  affair  is  made  up 
largely  from  Infractions  of  the  Plan,  appendix  I.  “Journals,”  III. 
(1848).  That  recital  has  been  checked  by  the  parallel  though  briefer 
statement  in  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  51,  52. 

A  good  idea  of  the  newspaper  dispute  may  be  obtained  from  the 
following  :  “W.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  5,  1845  (account  of  meeting  to  consider 
the  schism)  ;  “Ibid.,”  Oct.  24,  1845  (editorial  review  of  the  affair  to 
date)  ;  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  21,  1845  (Andrew’s  letter  recognizing  the 
Vine  Street  Chapel)  ;  “W.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  28,  1845  (letter  from  Marley, 
showing  that  the  M.  E.  Vine  Street  Mission  was  still  loyal  and  active 
even  if  the  South  had  a  charge  of  the  same  name)  ;  “Sw.  C.  A.,” 
Jan.  2,  1846  (letter  from  Maley  to  the  “Cincinnati  Gazette”  about  his 
rights  in  the  various  charges  in  the  city)  ;  “N.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  20,  1846 
(editorial  on  legality  of  Vine  Street  affair  under  the  Plan)  ;  “W.  C. 
A.,”  June  26,  1846  (letters  from  Marley  on  the  informal  permission 
given  Maley  to  use  the  Vine  Street  edifice)  ;  “N.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  15,  1848 
(a  correspondent,  Latta  (?),  reviews  the  final  report  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848  on  the  Cincinnati  matter). 

31  A  southern  version  of  the  facts  in  the  St.  Louis  troubles  may 
be  found  in  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  20,  1846.  A  northern  view,  very  ably 
and  clearly  stated,  may  be  found  in  “W.  C.  A.,”  Mar.  6,  1846.  See 
also  a  letter  by  Joseph  Tabor  in  same.  There  is  a  general  account  of 
the  troubles  in  Missouri  told  with  marked  southern  bias,  in  Leftwich, 
“Martyrdom  in  Missouri,”  ch.  V. 

32  The  facts  in  the  legal  case  arising  at  Alexandria,  Va.,  are 
stated  in  a  letter  to  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  13,  1849.  The  appealed  case 
and  decision  are  found  in  “Ibid.,”  July  18.  1850.  See  also  “R.  C.  A.,” 
May  24,  31,  June  7,  14,  July  12,  1849. 

33  Under  a  Virginia  statute  passed  March  23,  1836  under  the 
influence  of  the  early  reaction  against  abolitionist  agitation,  a  grand 
jury  in  Wood  County  presented  “The  Western  Christian  Advocate”  as 
a  dangerous  and  incendiary  publication,  and  warned  postmasters  and 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


141 


present  chapter  with  some  study  of  the  Maysville,  Ky., 
quarrel  and  its  outcome.  It  is  worthy  of  particular 
attention  for  two  reasons:  (1)  it  involved  a  legal  con¬ 
test  over  the  ownership  of  the  local  church  edifice,  thus 
marking  an  advanced  stage  in  the  history  of  these  un¬ 
fortunate  differences;  and  (2),  the  decision  of  the  court 
foreshadowed  the  point  of  view  adopted  by  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  final  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  larger  property  question.  For  these 
reasons  also  it  affords  us  an  easy  transition  to  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  that  larger  question  in  the  next  chapter. 

In  those  days  Maysville,  situated  in  Mason  County, 
Kentucky,  on  the  Ohio  River,  was  a  community  with  a 
total  population,  black  and  white,  of  2,741,  (1840).  34 
The  Methodists  there  reported  281  white  members  in 
1844.  35  This  society  seems  to  have  lived  in  perfect 
harmony  until  after  the  meeting  of  the  Louisville  Con¬ 
vention.  Then  its  troubles  began.  36  Just  prior  to 
that  convention  a  vote  had  been  taken  to  instruct 
delegates  as  to  local  desires  in  the  premises.  Only  two 
members  had  voted  for  separation.  After  the  events 
at  Louisville,  a  number  of  the  Maysville  members 
caught  the  separation  fever.  Among  these  were  the 


others  against  receiving  and  distributing  it.  See  “C.  A.  and  J.,” 
April  29,  1846;  “Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Va.,”  (1835-1836), 
44-45.  For  the  presentment  of  “The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,’’ 
by  a  grand  jury  of  Accomac  County  see  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  April  21,  1847. 

34  “Compendium  of  the  Sixth  Census,”  72. 

35  “Minutes  of  the  annual  conferences,”  III.  (1839-45),  522. 

If  the  church  roll  were  properly  sifted  probably  it  would  not  show 
more  than  260  members. 

36  In  dealing  with  the  Maysville  matter  we  are  on  much  safer 
ground  as  to  evidence,  than  in  dealing  with  some  of  the  local  affairs 
discussed  in  the  pages  immediately  preceding.  A  complete  record 
of  the  arguments,  and  the  decision  of  the  court  are  found  in  Waller, 
Hood  and  Stanton,  “The  Methodist  Church  Case  at  Maysville,  Ky.” 
From  the  facts  which  each  side  admitted  a  reliable  narrative  can  be 
constructed. 


142  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


presiding  elder,  the  preacher,  and  the  bulk  of  the  offi¬ 
cials.  The  southern  sympathizers  were  greatly  en¬ 
couraged  by  the  appearance  among  them  of  J.  Stam¬ 
per,  37  from  the  Illinois  conference.  The  other  faction 
was  inspired  by  the  arrival  of  Dr.  Tomlinson,  president 
of  Augusta  College.  A  notable  debate  ensued  and 
excitment  arose  to  white  heat,  the  proceedings  mani¬ 
festing  the  common  characteristics  of  the  stormy  polit¬ 
ical  contests  of  the  time. 

On  August  31,  1845,  came  the  regularly  called 
meeting  to  vote  on  the  subject  of  affiliation.  Previous 
to  the  meeting  sundry  petitions  or  declarations  had 
been  circulated  for  signature.  Some  northern  sympa¬ 
thizers,  it  was  alleged,  had  misunderstood  the  force 
of  these  documents,  thinking  that  by  signing  them 
they  had  voted.  Owing  to  this  misapprehension  they 
stayed  away  from  the  meeting,  the  formal  vote  of 
which  was  109  to  97,  a  majority  of  12  for  the  new 
connection.  But  it  was  not  a  majority  of  the  whole 
society. 38  This  fact  led  a  northern  sympathizer  to 
get  the  secretary’s  report  and,  before  it  was  forwarded 
to  the  Ohio  conference,  to  add  the  names  of  thirty-three 
absentee  northerners.  This  addition,  he  said,  made  a 
majority  of  the  whole  society  favoring  the  old  church. 
Now  each  party  had  some  basis  for  claiming  a  ma¬ 
jority — the  South  a  majority  of  the  formal  meeting. 


37  A  strong  adherent  of  the  southern  church. 

38  There  are  slight  discrepancies  in  the  accounts  as  to  the 
total  number  actually  voting  in  the  society,  and  entitled  to  vote. 
Some  said  256,  others  259,  but  the  point  is  immaterial. 

Each  side  made  the  most  of  its  advantages  in  its  attempts  to  win 
over  the  waverers.  “Do  you  wish  to  leave  the  M.  E.  Church?”  “Do 
you  prefer  an  abolitionist  preacher  from  Ohio  to  one  of  your  own 
kind  from  Kentucky  ?”  Such  were  some  of  the  questions. 

A  brief  announcement  of  the  vote  is  found  in  69  “Niles  Register,” 


72. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


143 


the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  a  majority  of  the 
whole  charge. 

The  annual  conference  was  in  session  when  the 
amended  report  arrived,  but  the  bishop,  39  finding  the 
proceedings  irregular,  refused  to  send  a  preacher. 
Nevertheless,  Dr.  Tomlinson  remained  to  preach  for 
them.  Meantime  the  Kentucky  conference  receiving 
the  report  of  th(e  vote  in  the  formal  meeting  sent  Rev. 
Mr.  Grubbs  to  shepherd  the  southern  flock.  Notices 
appeared  making  it  evident  that  unless  someone  backed 
down,  both  Dr.  Tomlinson  and  Mr.  Grubbs  would  be 
trying  to  preach  in  the  same  church  at  the  same  time. 
A  serious  clash  seemed  imminent.  Representatives 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  suggested  a  division 
of  the  time,  in  order  to  avoid  turmoil  or  worse.  The 
offer  was  rejected  and  Mr.  Armstrong,  a  leader  among 
the  old  Methodists,  acting  on  the  advice  of  counsel, 
closed  the  meeting  house,  securing  both  doors  and 
windows.  Mr.  Grubbs  and  his  congregation  “quiet¬ 
ly”  40  reopened  the  building  and  held  their  services. 

Obviously,  now,  if  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
retained  what  it  thought  to  be  its  rights  in  the  Mays- 
ville  edifice,  it  must  appeal  to  the  courts.  To  make  a 
long  story  short,  a  decree  was  granted  ordering  the 
two  parties  to  use  the  property  jointly.  41  An  appeal 


39  While  refusing  the  request,  Bishop  Hamline  suggested  that 
they  get  a  formal  meeting  and  make  it  clear  that  they  had  a  majority. 
They  did  this,  at  least  to  the  satisfaction  of  Presiding  Elder  Marley 
of  the  Cincinnati  district,  who  admitted  them  into  the  Augusta  cir¬ 
cuit  of  the  Ohio  conference,  and  sent  Rev.  Mr.  Lawder  to  minister 
to  their  spiritual  needs.  Letter  of  John  Armstrong  in  “C.  A.  and 
J.,”  Feb.  25,  1846. 

40  An  aggrieved  party,  telling  the  story  of  his  persecutions, 
always  reports  himself  as  having  done  things  “quietly.” 

41  This  decree  made  permanent  an  injunction  to  the  same  effect 
obtained  earlier  by  Armstrong.  His  opponents  had  tried  to  have  it 


144  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


was  then  taken  by  the  defeated  party  to  the  highest 
court  of  the  state.  There  the  decision  of  the  lower 
court  was  set  aside,  and  the  exclusive  use  of  the  meet¬ 
ing  house  given  to  the  South.  42  This  decision  was 
handed  down  July  27,  1847,  and  in  it  practically  for 
the  first  time  the  whole  question  of  the  relations  of 
the  two  Methodisms,  and  the  validity  of  the  Plan  on 
which  so  much  nebulous  and  inconclusive  argument 
had  been  wasted,  came  under  careful  judicial  review. 

Reviewing  the  earlier  history  of  the  church,  the 
schism  of  1844,  the  definite  southern  choice  registered 
by  the  Kentucky  conference,  and  the  formal  vote  of 
the  Maysville  society  to  go  with  its  natural  geographi¬ 
cal  section,  the  judge  concluded  that  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  could  legally  change  the  name  and  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  church  as  circumstances  dictated,  and  that 
the  separation  sanctioned  by  that  body  in  1844  was 
valid.  He  cited  illustrations,  which,  he  thought, 
proved  that  self-created  bodies  could  provide  for  their 
own  dismemberment.  The  Virginia  legislature,  for 
instance,  was  able  to  dispose  of  part  of  its  territory 
even  without  asking  specifically  the  consent  of  the 
people.  The  General  Conference  had  sanctioned  a 


quashed  on  the  ground  that  they  were  the  legal  church  in  Maysville, 
according  to  the  Plan  of  Sepax*ation.  Letter  in  “W.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  20, 
1846. 

42  Gibbon  vs.  Armstrong,  7  “Ben  Monroe,”  481  ff. 

Sidelights  on  this  case  may  be  found  in  “W.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  24,  1845 
(editorial  comment  on  the  vote  of  Aug.  31)  ;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Feb.  25, 
1846  (long  letter  from  Armstrong)  ;  Armstrong  also  has  a  letter  in 
“W.  C.  A.,”  copied  into  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  25,  1847,  expressing  his 
feelings  on  the  final  decision. 

Frankfort  and  Augusta  were  having  hard  times  trying  to  decide 
their  church  affiliations.  The  fact  that  Augusta  College  was  located 
at  the  latter  place,  and  that  it  was  presided  over  by  the  energetic  Dr. 
Tomlinson,  made  it  a  lively  center.  The  southern  side  of  the  Augusta, 
Ky.,  story  is  exploited  by  A.  H.  Bedford  in  “Sw.  C.  A.,”  April  18,  25, 
and  May  2,  1845. 


THE  BORDER  CONFLICT 


145 


division  similar  to  the  one  in  question  in  the  cases  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Canada. 43  The  only  condition 
placed  upon  the  southern  conferences  was  that  they 
should  find  it  necessary  to  separate,  and  of  that  neces¬ 
sity  they  were  made  the  sole  judges.  The  distribution 
of  the  property  in  the  Book  Concerns  was  intended  to 
be  a  consequence  of  separation,  not  a  condition  on 
which  it  should  depend.  Incidentally  the  court 
pointed  out  that  the  complainants,  by  attending  and 
voting  at  the  meeting  called  to  decide  on  the  question 
of  affiliation,  implicitly  recognized  the  validity  of  the 
provisions  under  which  the  proceedings  took 44 
place.  45 


43  See  above  pages  110  ff. 

44  The  Maysville  church  in  this  case  spent  a  large  sum  of  money 
testing  a  principle  of  great  importance  to  the  southern  connection  ;  and 
in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  contest  it  had  petitioned  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  1846  for  aid.  The  Conference  had  replied  by  advising  a 
group  of  border  conferences  to  raise  $100  for  the  relief  of  the  Mays¬ 
ville  congregation.  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  12,  21,  34-35. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  also  made  provision  for  its  fac¬ 
tion.  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  117-118. 

45  The  border  controversy  gave  rise  to  a  whole  crop  of  local 
church  property  cases.  The  Wesley  Chapel,  Warrenton  Circuit,  Fau¬ 
quier  County,  Va.,  controversy  gave  rise  to  one — Diggs  vs.  Hume — 
decided  Oct.  8,  1850.  See  “C  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  24,  1850 ;  and  the 
editorial  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  7,  1850,  with  the  article  copied  from 
“Piedmont  Whig.”  In  this  case  the  court  refused  to  sanction  the 
Plan  of  Separation  and  decided  in  favor  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  churches  at  Salem  and  Rectortown  in  the  same  county,  gave 
rise  to  the  cases  of  Brooke  vs.  Shackett,  and  Carter  vs.  Wolfe,  (13 
“Grattan,”  301),  decided  together  May  23,  1856.  In  these  cases 
the  court  upheld  the  Plan  adopting  the  reasoning  of  the  Maysville 
case  and  that  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the 
Book  Concerns. 

In  1879  the  Harmony  Church  dispute  in  Loudon  County,  Va., 
produced  the  cases  of  Hoskinson  vs.  Pusey,  and  White  vs.  King, 
(32  “Grattan,”  428).  The  Baltimore  conference  staying  in  the  old 
connection  in  1844-46,  seceded  in  1861  and  remained  independent 
until  1866,  when  it  decided  to  affiliate  with  the  South.  The  mi¬ 
nority  of  1861  meantime  had  organized  a  new  Baltimore  conference 
loyal  to  the  old  church.  In  1866  Harmony  Church  voted  to  adhere 


146  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

As  was  natural,  since  the  court  accepted  so  many 
common  southern  arguments  and  reasoned  so  directly 
contrary  to  northern  interests  and  predilections,  the 
Maysville  opinion  was  widely  denounced  in  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church.  There  were  hints  that  the 
court  was  prejudiced  through  the  excessive  influence 
of  certain  well-known  southern  Methodists. 46  Per¬ 
haps  the  fact  that  the  views  of  the  court  were  later  so 
largely  adopted  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  may  tend  to  offset  these  assumptions  of  im¬ 
proper  influence.  It  was  something,  at  least,  for  a 
state  court  to  have  sketched  the  broad  lines  along 
which  these  unfortunate  differences  were  to  be 
authoritatively  composed. 


to  the  South.  This  status  was  maintained  until  1871  when  the  Har¬ 
mony  Methodist  Episcopal  minority  (northern)  asked  the  courts  for 
relief  and  for  possession  of  the  property  then  in  the  hands  of  the 
other  faction.  The  southerners  professed  to  act  under  the  Plan  of 
1844.  Their  contention  was  denied  by  the  court  and  the  relief  asked 
for  by  the  minority  was  granted,  on  the  ground  that  the  Plan  had 
provided  for  but  one  separation  and  must  not  be  made  to  do  duty 
indefinitely.  It  also  said  that  the  congregation  in  question  was  not 
a  border  society.  The  court  followed  substantially  the  reasoning  of 
the  Supreme  Court  decision. 

46  “Great  Secession,”  464-66.  612,  613.  Dr.  Elliott  brings  to¬ 
gether  here  some  facts  tending  to  show  that  the  decision  was  due  to 
excessive  southern  influence.  H.  B.  Bascom  was  president  of  Tran¬ 
sylvania  University  at  Lexington,  M,  M.  Henkle  was  pastor  of  the 
M.  E.  Church,  South,  there,  and  Judge  Robinson,  ex-chief  justice  of 
Kentucky,  was  professor  of  constitutional  law  in  the  University. 
Dr.  Elliott  thinks  that  these  men  furnished  the  line  of  argument,  and 
influenced  the  court  to  adopt  it. 


Chapter  VII 


THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY 

QUESTION 

A  large  fraction  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  con¬ 
sists  of  directions  for  dividing  the  property  of  the 
church.  It  recommended  to  the  annual  conferences 
that  they  suspend  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  in  order 
to  allow  the  distribution  contemplated ; 1  it  authorized 
the  diversion  to  the  new  church  of  all  notes  and  book 
accounts,  real  estate,  presses  and  stock  in  the  South, 
and  all  rights  in  the  church  printing  houses,  as  soon  as 
the  constitutional  limitation  should  have  been  removed. 
It  arranged  for  the  sharing  of  the  Book  Concerns 
(publishing  houses)  with  the  southern  Methodists  and 
appointed  commissioners 2  to  administer  these  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  Plan  when  the  time  should  come,  and 
a  new  connection  should  have  become  an  actuality. 
Copyrights  were  to  be  used  in  common  and  the  Char¬ 
tered  Fund  was  to  be  appraised  and  a  fair  share  in  it 
paid  over  to  the  new  church  by  the  Methodist  Book 
Agents  in  New  York. 

Thus  in  meeting  with  “  Christian  charity” 3  the 
grave  crisis  that  had  come  upon  it,  the  church,  or  at 
least  the  General  Conference,  seemed  to  admit  the 


1  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  135-37.  See  also  appendix  II.  of 
this  work. 

2  Nathan  Bangs,  G.  Peck  and  J.  B.  Finley  were  named. 

As  far  as  the  General  Conference  had  the  power  it  freed  all 
southern  meeting  houses,  parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  conference 
funds,  cemeteries  and  property  of  every  kind  from  any  future  claim 
on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

3  The  expression  used  in  the  preamble  to  the  Plan. 


148  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

equity  of  the  southern  claim  to  a  share  in  all  the  joint 
property  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  We  get  the  im¬ 
pression  that  the  claim  was  already  recognized  and 
that  the  annual  conferences  were  asked  to  readjust 
the  constitutional  machinery  to  allow  this  claim  to 
be  met.  4 

On  reaching  home  the  General  Conference  dele¬ 
gates  soon  found  that  the  question  of  dividing  the 
property  had  merged  with  the  larger  questions  of  the 
constitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  Plan  as  a 
whole.  The  resulting  clash  of  variant  opinions  bore 


4  For  a  very  brief  history  of  the  Book  Concerns  and  the 
Chartered  Fund  see  Whitlock,  “The  Story  of  the  Book  Concerns,”  49 
51,  58-65. 

The  Methodist  Book  Concern  was  started  in  1789  when  the 
American  preachers  decided  to  print  their  own  literature  instead 
of  importing  it  from  England.  They  also  desired  to  make  the  profits 
of  the  book  sales  aid  the  church.  From  very  humble  beginnings  the 
business  grew,  experiencing  many  vicissitudes  of  fortune,  moving  from 
place  to  place  for  a  time,  and  suffering  almost  total  loss  by  fire  in 
1836,  after  it  had  been  permanently  located  in  New  York  City.  In 
1844  its  value  had  grown  to  three-quarters  of  a  million  dollars.  The 
Conference  of  1829  had  established  a  Western  Book  Concern  at 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  which  also  had  prospered  being  valued  in  1844,  at 
about  $200,000. 

The  Chartered  Fund  had  been  started  in  1784  when  the  preachers 
originated  what  was  called  “The  Preachers’  Fund.”  Its  object  was 
to  aid  superannuates,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased 
preachers.  A  board  of  nine  men  administered  the  Fund  and  reported 
the  earnings  to  the  Conference. 

In  1797  it  was  incorporated  as  the  Chartered  Fund  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  still  retaining  the 
objects  already  stated.  It  was  comparatively  a  small  item  in  the 
property  question,  amounting  in  1844  to  about  $45,000.  For  the 
origin  and  management  of  this  Fund  see  also  “Journals,”  I.  (1796), 
20-22;  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  27,  1832;  Bangs,  “Hist.,”  II.  44-51. 

The  sixth  restrictive  rule  which  prevented  the  General  Conference 
from  exercising  full  control  over  these  funds  runs  as  follows :  “They 
shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the 
Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the 
travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated  and  worn-out  preachers, 
their  wives,  widows  and  children.”  It  permits  the  suspension  of  this 
limitation  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of  the  annual  conferences. 
“Discipline”  of  1844,  22. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  149 


upon  the  subordinate  question  of  property  as  well  as 
upon  the  larger  issue  of  which  the  property  question 
was  but  a  part.  As  on  the  questions  of  boundary  and 
the  legality  of  the  Plan,  so  on  the  question  of 
property,  two  radically  antagonistic  points  of  view 
appeared  and  were  vigorously  propagated.  One 
northern  faction  held  that  the  church  was  morally 
bound  to  carry  out  the  agreement  implicit,  at  least,  in 
the  Plan.  The  other  held  that  there  was  no  shred  of 
moral  or  legal  obligation  to  mutilate  the  property  of 
the  church  for  the  benefit  of  the  South. 

All  through  the  quadrennium  (1844-1848)  and 
longer  this  conflict  raged,  contributing  generously 
to  the  confusion.  5  Of  those  who  consistently  held 
that  the  church  was  bound  to  divide  the  property, 
none  put  his  case  more  forcibly  than  did  Dr.  Bond. 
Although,  as  we  have  seen,  he  believed  the  Plan 
to  be  unconstitutional,  inexpedient  and  a  huge 
blunder,  he  had  also  reached  the  solemn  conviction 
that  the  church  was  not  thereby  released  from  the 
implied  promise  made  in  its  name  in  1844.  He  ex¬ 
pressed  his  view  in  an  editorial  late  in  1846.  6 

Just  before  the  Conference  of  1848,  he  explained 
his  views  more  fully.  These  may  be  summarized  as  fol¬ 
lows  :  (1)  The  act  of  1844  passed  the  Conference  with 

so  near  an  approach  to  unanimity  as  to  give  reasonable 
assurance  that  the  annual  conferences  would  comply 


5  Some  of  the  Scottite  seceders  were  ready  with  reams  of  free 
advice  to  the  mother  church.  They  sympathized  with  the  South, 
asserting  that  good  faith  required  a  division,  and  deploring  the  ten¬ 
dency  of  the  church  to  put  the  issue  on  a  legal  instead  of  a  moral 
basis.  “R.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  4,  1847,  item  copied  from  “The  True  Wes¬ 
leyan.” 


6  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  2,  1846. 


150  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


with  the  request.  (2)  The  annual  conferences,  while 
failing  to  give  the  constitutional  majority,  7  did  give 
a  very  substantial  majority  in  favor  of  suspending  the 
rule.  (3)  The  reasons  given  in  some  of  the  annual 
conferences  for  refusing  to  comply  just  then  were  such 
as  to  encourage  in  the  South  a  belief  that  the  property 
would  not  finally  be  withheld. 8  (4)  The  benefici¬ 

aries  of  the  property  in  the  South  had,  through  no 
fault  of  their  own,  been  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  that 
property.  (5)  The  southern  membership  had  been 
deprived  of  the  aid  they  had  previously  received  for 
the  support  of  their  dependent  pastors  and  pastors’ 
families,  though  these  members  had  had  no  direct  voice 
in  deciding  the  question  of  separation.  And  finally, 
(6)  the  Book  Concerns  were  after  all  the  product  of  the 
joint  labors  of  both  wings  of  the  church.  9 


7  A  three-fourths  vote  was  required. 

8  The  Illinois  and  Baltimore  conferences  especially,  while  vot¬ 
ing  heavily  against  suspending  the  restriction  expressly  stated  that 
they  were  not  opposed  to  dividing  the  property,  but  did  not  wish  to 
agree  to  it  before  a  new  church  was  set  up  as  that  would  appear  to 
encourage  division. 

9  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  March  1,  1848.  Dr.  Bond  wrote :  “After 
calm,  deliberate,  and  prayerful  consideration,  we  have  neither  seen 
nor  heard  anything  to  change  our  original  opinion,  that  the  property, 
known  as  the  ‘Book  Concern’  ought  to  be  divided....”  The  Char¬ 
tered  Fund  ought  also  to  be  divided. 

He  used  the  following  illustration  :  “If  my  neighbor  beld  with 
me  an  equitable  interest  in  a  tract  of  land,  and  he  was  to  commit 
upon  me  an  assault  and  battery,  it  would  not  abate  by  an  iota  his 
right  in  the  land,  or  justify  me  in  keeping  him  out  of  the  possession, 
if  I  had  the  power.  Nor  with  a  Christian,  should  it  make  any  dif¬ 
ference,  though  there  were  a  legal  defect  in  my  neighbor’s  title,  pro¬ 
vided  justice  was  on  his  side.  A  Christian  must  be  more  than  law 
honest....'  In  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  for  Mar.  8,  1848,  he  suggested  a 
plan  for  solving  the  property  question.  He  would  have  the  next  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  send  to  the  annual  conferences  another  recommenda¬ 
tion  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule. 

Editor  Lee  thought  this  last  a  hopeless  proposal.  In  his  sight 
the  chances  for  an  amicable  division  of  the  property  were  very  small. 
“B.  C.  A..”  Mar.  16,  1848. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  151 


At  another  time  Dr.  Bond  asked 10  whether  the 
traveling  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
could  conscientiously  take  pecuniary  advantage  of  the 
wrong  committed  against  them  by  their  representatives 
in  passing  the  Plan  of  Separation.  He  thought  it  clear¬ 
ly  impossible  to  do  so  and  escape  the  imputation  of 
mercenary  motives.  For  himself  he  would  rather  a 
thousand  times  that  the  property  should  be  consumed 
by  fire  and  his  children  remain  penniless  than  that 
they  should  have  bequeathed  to  them  property  so 
tainted.*  11 

On  the  other  and  more  popular  side  a  great  wealth 
of  argument  was  poured  forth  to  prove  that  no  obliga¬ 
tion  existed  to  divide  the  funds.  In  Dr.  Elliott’s  mind 
there  were  four  chief  obstacles  to  a  division.  (1)  The 
funds  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  church  for  spec¬ 
ific  objects,  and  justice  required  that  there  should  be 
no  perversion  of  the  trust.  (2)  The  South  was  using 


10  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  April  19,  1848,  editorial  comment  on  letter 
of  J.  K.  Hallock.  See  also  the  strong  views  of  “A  Member  of  the  M. 
E.  Church”  favoring  division  of  the  property.  “W.  C.  A.,”  May  8,  1846. 

11  Bond’s  views  were  attacked  by  a  writer  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,” 
April  26,  1848.  He  asked,  What  if  the  South  did  get  the  idea  that 
the  Conference  of  1844  favored  division  ?  Was  it  not  due  to  the 
erroneous  representations  of  the  South  as  to  the  southern  conditions 
to  say  nothing  of  their  being  “false,  hypocritical  and  dishonest”? 
He  asked  if  the  North  was  bound  to  pay  the  South  for  cheating  it. 
The  same  misrepresentations  got  the  big  vote  for  amending  the  sixth 
rule,  in  the  annual  conferences.  The  church  would  never  pass  the 
Plan  now  that  their  eyes  were  opened  to  the  real  aims  of  the  South. 
If  the  superannuated  ministers  of  the  South  wanted  to  get  aid  from 
the  Book  Concern  why  did  they  not  join  a  northern  conference?  True, 
the  membership  in  the  South  had  had  no  share  in  division,  so  if  we 
divided  the  funds  we  should  make  them  content  where  the  southern 
preachers  have  put  them.  Those  preachers  would  then  say  to  us,  Well 
done,  good  and  faithful  servants.  He  attacked  Dr.  Bond’s  statement 
that  the  South  helped  to  build  up  the  property  by  reminding  him  that 
they  had  also  enjoyed  their  share  of  the  profits. 

They  had  also,  he  asserted,  left  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  so  had  forfeited  all  claims  to  its  funds. 


152  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

the  funds  to  produce  through  their  press  an  unscrip- 
tural  division  of  the  church.  The  funds  of  the  church 
were  thus  being  used  to  destroy  the  church  itself.  (3) 
If  the  funds  should  be  divided  with  the  South,  then 
earlier  seceders  would  put  in  their  claims,  and  future 
divisions  would  be  encouraged.  12  (4)  These  funds 

might  be  needed  to  replant  true  Methodism  in  the 
South  after  the  new  church  should  have  corrupted  and 
perverted  it. 13 

Mr.  Finley, 14  who  will  be  remembered  as  a 
prominent  figure  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
was  a  strong  opponent  of  division.  On  two  dif¬ 
ferent  occasions  at  least,  he  had  formally  expressed 
his  views,  which  were  briefly  as  follows:  (1)  The  an¬ 
nual  conferences,  by  voting  against  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  to  suspend  the  sixth  rule,  had  vetoed  the  authority 
of  the  commissioners  so  that  he  as  commissioner  could 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter.  (2)  The  General 
Conference  had  neglected  to  give  authority  to  the  com¬ 
missioners  to  collect  the  votes  of  the  annual  con¬ 
ferences  on  changing  the  rule.  (3)  The  official  fig¬ 
ures  could  not  be  obtained  since  the  secretaries  of  the 
annual  conferences  need  not  (some  dared  not)  an¬ 
nounce  or  disclose  the  votes.  (4)  The  South  had  not 
complied  with  the  conditions  of  the  Plan.  (5)  There 


12  See  note  5  page  149.  Is  it  possible  that  this  secret  hope  deter¬ 
mined  in  part  the  sympathy  of  the  Wesleyan  seceders?  We  doubt  it. 

13  “W.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  16,  1846.  In  the  same  issue  of  “The  West¬ 
ern  Christian  Advocate”  Mr.  Finley  expressed  the  hope  that  the  church 
would  think  on  this  idea,  that  recognition  of  this  secession  might 
lead  earlier  seceders  to  enter  their  claims.  Peter  Cartwright  also 
wrote  regarding  Dr.  Bangs’  arguments  favorable  to  the  legality  of 
the  Plan  at  this  time,  that  the  West  was  growing  tired  of  Dr.  Bangs’ 
“sickly  peace.” 

14  Mr.  Finley  was  one  of  the  commissioners  appointed  under 
the  Plan  of  Separation  to  supervise  the  division  of  the  property. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  153 


is  no  constitutional  power  either  in  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  or  in  the  annual  conferences  to  divide  the 
capital  of  the  Book  Concerns  for  any  purpose.  (6) 
The  proceeds  should  go  to  the  poor  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  They  were  depending  upon  them. 
(7)  There  was  no  real  need  for  the  South  to  secede. 
Secession  was  the  work  of  ambitious  men.  (8)  Their 
object  in  leaving  was  to  maintain  the  great  evil  of 
slavery. 15 

Other  arguments  appeared  in  the  church  press  the 
columns  of  which  fairly  bulged  with  the  pros  and  cons 
of  this  and  the  larger  controversy.  A  few  desired  that 
the  church  should  wait;  time  was  a  great  problem 
solver.  It  would  be  time  enough  in  1848  or  even  in 
1852  to  take  up  the  property  question  seriously.  16 
Some  individuals  would  assent  to  division  if  it  could 
be  done  consistently  with  Christianity  and  without 
endangering  the  church, 17  but  the  unconstitutionally 
of  the  Plan  of  Separation  was  argument  enough  for 
many  who  had  strong  conscientious  scruples  against 
doing  anything  unconstitutional. 18  Dr.  Peck  said 


15  These  arguments  by  Dr.  Finley  may  be  found  in  “W.  C.  A.,” 

Nov.  13,  1846.  See  also  letters  of  his  in  opposition  to  division  in 

“Ibid.,”  Jan.  16,  1846.  Note  also  an  item  copied  from  “W.  C.  A.” 
into  “R..  C.  A.,”  Sept.  16,  1847. 

16  “W.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  16,  1846  ;  “Z.  H.,”  March  18,  1S46. 

17  “W.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  16,  1846. 

18  “S.  C.  A.,”  May  14,  1847,  editorial. 

This  idea  was  frequently  expressed  in  the  North,  and  extorted 
sarcastic  comment  from  the  South.  “We  are  told  that  intelligent 
and  kindly  disposed  brethren  at  the  North  are  beginning  to  be  pressed 
in  conscience  about  the  matter  [the  constitutionality  of  the  division 
of  the  property].  Aye  conscience;  but  then  it  is  a  tender  conscience 
which  sees  how  awfully  wrong  it  would  be  to  violate  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  Church  !  !  Certain  Organs  have  been  grinding  dolorous 
ditties  ever  and  again  about  constitutionality,  and  un-constitutionality , 
until  men  of  tender  conscience  begin  to  be  alarmed  at  the  idea  of 
doing  an  unconstitutional  thing !  This  constitutional  difficulty  hung 


154  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


there  could  be  no  moral  obligation  to  violate  the  con¬ 
stitution.  Others  pointed  out  that  the  Canadian  case 
had  established  the  principle  that  the  church  could  not 
divide  the  funds  even  with  the  consent  of  the  annual 
conferences,  as  no  change  in  the  rule  could  make  it 
apply  to  carrying  property  outside  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 19  Matlack,  a  leader  among  the 
Wesleyans,  said  that  the  real  objection  to  dividing  the 
funds  lay  in  the  reluctance  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  to  recognize  in  any  way  a  slaveholding 
church.  20 

This  selection  of  representative  views  will  suffice 
to  bring  before  us  the  chief  contentions  of  the  two 
parties  in  the  North.  On  the  one  hand,  we  see  the 
issue  placed  squarely  on  the  moral  obligation  laid  upon 
the  church  by  the  passage  of  the  Plan  regardless  of 
its  expediency  or  even  its  constitutionality ;  on  the 
other,  we  find  a  variety  of  arguments,  some  valid  and 
constituting  a  real  problem  for  the  church,  others  trans¬ 
parent  and  unworthy  of  the  great  Methodist  people 
and  leaders  of  that  day.  We  can  respect  an  argument 
based  upon  a  horror  of  slavery.  We  can  honor  men 
who  loved  the  church  and  refused  to  connive  at  its 
disruption.  We  can  sympathize  with  men  who  feared 
that  schism  in  the  church  foreshadowed,  disunion  in 
the  nation.  We  must  recognize,  too,  the  difficulty 


np  in  the  sheets  of  the  Christian  Advocate  like  a  Medusa’s  head  has 
been  ‘shaking  its  gory  locks’  at  them  until  they  have  got  so  be¬ 
wildered  as  not  to  see  that  conventional  arrangements,  mere  agree¬ 
ments  of  human  policy  and  interest,  can  never  come  legitimately  in 
bar  of  the  eternal  law  of  moral  rectitude.  When  men  talk  of  con¬ 
science,  in  this  way,  we  give  up  in  despair.” 

19  Stevens  in  “Z.  EL,”  Nov.  10,  1847. 

20  “American  Slavery  and  Methodism,”  appendix,  13.  See  also 
Finley’s  article  in  “W.  C.  A.,”  copied  into  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  10,  1847, 
where  the  same  idea  appears. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  155 

created  by  the  failure  of  the  annual  conferences  to 
change  the  rule,  whereby  they  absolutely  tied  the 
hands  of  the  church.  We  can  admit  a  certain  validity, 
from  their  own  point  of  view,  in  the  contention  of  those 
who  had  succeeded  in  eliminating  the  Plan  entirely 
from  their  thought,  and  who  could  thus  reiterate  the 
otherwise  absurd  argument  that  the  southern  Metho¬ 
dists  had  simply  seceded,  and  being  thus  ordinary 
schismatics,  were  entitled  to  no  share  in  the  property 
of  the  church  they  had  forsaken.  21  We  say  that  we 
can  respect  these  arguments,  but  when  we  turn  to 
others  we  feel  less  respectful.  When  men  argued  ser¬ 
iously  that  the  funds  should  go  to  the  needy  preachers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  dependent  upon 
them,  we  may  ask  how  that  need  gave  them  any  right 
to  double  their  original  income  by  taking  the  share  of 
the  southern  preachers.  When  they  could  say  that 
1848  or  1852  would  be  soon  enough  to  consider  a  divis¬ 
ion  of  the  property;  that  there  could  be  no  moral 
ground  for  violating  the  constitution;  or  when  they 
could  say  with  Mr.  Finley,  (in  answer  to  the  southern 
commissioners  in  1846)  that  he  and  his  fellow  com¬ 
missioners  had  no  power  to  collect  the  votes  of  the  an¬ 
nual  conferences  on  changing  the  rule  and  so  had  no 
official  knowledge  of  the  result ;  22  when  men  could 


21  To  this  same  class,  also,  the  view  was  perfectly  tenable  that 
if  they  divided  with  the  South  all  previous  secessionists  were  likely  to 
apply  for  their  share.  One  would  like  to  remind  those  people  of  the 
fact  that  there  really  was  a  Plan  of  Separation,  and  that  the  mere 
mention  of  it  absolutely  bars  the  claims  of  all  who  had  been  so  un¬ 
fortunate  as  to  leave  the  church  without  such  a  charter  from  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference 

22  Note  the  inconsistency  of  this  argument  with  another  used 
by  Mr.  Finley.  First  he  said  he  would  have  no  part  in  the  division 
of  the  property  as  the  annual  conferences  x-efused  to  change  the  rule. 
Secondly,  he  said,  in  effect,  that  the  commissioners  not  having  the 
power  to  canvass  the  vote  did  not  know  how  the  confei*ences  had 
voted.  See  page  152  above. 


156  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


talk  in  this  strain,  we  conclude  that  consciously  or  un¬ 
consciously,  they  were  quibbling.  Any  admirer  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  could  well  wish  that  these 
arguments  had  not  been  used.  Plenty  of  critics  arose 
to  chew  scornfully  on  so  tempting  a  morsel — a  church 
arguing  lamely  and  inconsistently,  apparently  in  order 
to  retain  money.  23 

With  the  refusal  of  the  annual  conferences  to  sus¬ 
pend  the  rule,  which  rendered  it  impossible  to  divide 
the  property  legally,  the  church  was  placed  in  a  very 
difficult  position.  Although  it  had  admitted  in  1844 
through  its  representatives  that  the  South  had  a  just 
claim  against  the  property,  it  was  now  legally  unable 
to  act  on  that  admission.  Hence  the  church  was  un¬ 
ceremoniously  dragged  by  the  South  into  a  lawsuit, 
and  the  legal  limitations,  which  it  had  itself  refused  to 
remove,  ivere  ruthlessly  removed  for  it  by  the  civil 
courts.  The  steps  leading  to  this  consummation  we 
must  now  study. 

For  some  time  there  was  nothing  for  the  commis¬ 
sioners  appointed  under  the  Plan  to  do,  as  the  new 
connection  was  not  immediately  formed.  The  Louis¬ 
ville  Convention  24  decided  not  to  appoint  similar  com¬ 
missioners  just  then,  but  it  advised  the  coming  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  (1846)  to  appoint  them  25  as  soon  as 
they  could  be  useful.  When  the  southern  General 


23  A  strong  feeling  of  church  unity  and  a  desire  to  save  it  had 
much  to  do,  as  we  have  said,  in  defeating  the  General  Conference 
recommendation  to  change  the  rule.  The  sturdy  unionism  of  the  Old 
Northwest  both  ecclesiastically  and  nationally  is  well  typified  in  the 
“Autobiography”  of  Peter  Cartwright,  the  rough  and  ready  old 
traveling  preacher,  whenever  he  touched  on  slavery,  the  schism,  the 
national  union,  or  the  property  question. 

24  May  1,  1845. 

25  “Official  Hist.,”  180-181,  189. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  157 


Conference  met  26  the  New  York  Book  Agents  (man¬ 
agers  of  the  Book  Concern)  advised  it  that  they  would 
be  unable  longer  to  apportion  any  part  of  the  profits 
to  the  South.  27  This  decision  called  forth  28  a  protest 
and  some  free  advice  to  the  Agents  by  the  Conference. 
The  finance  committee  to  which  had  been  referred  the 
question  of  property  and  the  task  of  suggesting  the 
best  means  of  securing  to  the  South  her  property 
rights,  29  recommended  that  three  commissioners  30  be 
appointed  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  act  with  those 
appointed  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  31  to  ad¬ 
just  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  division  of  the  church 
property  and  funds.  They  were  to  notify  their  north¬ 
ern  colleagues  of  their  readiness  to  act,  and,  if  no  settle- 


26  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  May  1,  1846. 

27  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  14.  They  proposed  to  retain 
and  invest  the  money  pending  the  action  of  their  General  Conference 
in  1848. 

In  October,  1845,  the  Book  Agents  at  New  York  decided  to  send 
to  the  South  its  quota  of  the  proceeds,  since  these  had  been  appor¬ 
tioned  in  the  previous  January,  and  before  the  meeting  of  the  Louis¬ 
ville  convention.  “W.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  14,  1845. 

28  See  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  30-34,  for  the  reply  of  the 
Conference  to  the  Agents,  regretting  that  the  Agents  felt  that  their 
duty  compelled  them  to  withhold  the  funds.  It  also  charged  them 
with  violating  the  Plan.  Three  objections  were  offered,  to  the 
course  pursued  by  the  Agents  : 

(1)  It  was  assumed  that  the  annual  conferences  had  refused  to 
change  the  restrictive  rule.  Why  had  the  Agents  failed  to  get  official 
returns  on  that  vote? 

(2)  The  Plan  specifically  provided  that  until  the  division  was 
completed,  the  South  should  “share  in  all  the  net  profits  of  the 
Book  Concern.” 

(3)  The  failure  of  the  method  proposed  by  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  to  give  the  South  its  rights  did  not  invalidate  those  rights. 

29  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  10-12.  It  will  be  noted  that  the 
sessions  of  the  southern  General  Conference  occur  every  four  years  : 
1846,  1850,  1854,  etc.,  while  those  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
occur  every  four  years:  1848,  1852,  1856,  etc. 

30  They  were  Messrs.  H.  B.  Bascom,  A.  L.  P.  Green  and  S.  A. 
Latta. 

31  Messrs.  Bangs,  Peck  and  Finley. 


158  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


ment  could  be  obtained  before,  they  were  to  attend  the 
General  Conference  of  1848  in  the  interest  of  the  South. 
As  a  last  resort  they  were  empowered  to  take  such 
measures  as  might  seem  appropriate  to  effect  a  settle¬ 
ment,  if  after  due  time,  none  was  reached  in  co-oper¬ 
ation  with  the  North.  32  Accordingly  on  August  2, 
1846,  the  southern  commissioners  addressed  to  those  of 
the  North  a  request  for  an  early  conference  to  take  up 
the  task  assigned  to  them.  33  A  reply,  penned  by  Mr. 
Finley,  refused  the  request  adding  that  the  northern 
commissioners  could  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  mat¬ 
ter.  34 

Direct  negotiations  with  the  northern  commis¬ 
sioners  thus  proving  abortive  nothing  was  left  for  the 
southern  commissioners  but  to  await  the  assembling  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1848,  and  attend  its  ses¬ 
sions  in  accordance  with  their  instructions.  When  it 
met  they  preferred  a  request  for  some  one  to  be  author¬ 
ized  to  treat  with  them  on  the  property  question.  This 
request  was  referred  to  a  committee  which  reported 
that  since  no  returns  had  come  to  it  from  the  annual 


82  Rev.  J.  Early  was  made  Agent,  to  receive  the  funds,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  terms  of  the  Plan.  “Journals,  South,”  (1846),  96-97. 

33  Apparently  expecting  an  unfavorable  reply  they  had  pro¬ 
ceeded  in  the  request  to  argue  the  question.  They  thought,  if  no 
clear  evidence  had  come  to  the  northern  commissioners  that  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  recommendation  had  failed  they  should  act  as  if  it 
had  carried— a  pretty  large  assumption.  They  argued  also  that  if 
the  vote  were  counted  properly — counting  those  present  and  voting, 
and  not  counting  such  conferences  as  the  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  ar 
all — the  recommendation  would  be  found  to  have  passed.  They  con¬ 
tended  further  that  the  proposed  change  in  the  rule  was  only  a  means 
to  an  end  and  that  the  South  intended  to  use  the  funds  for  the  same 
objects  that  the  old  church  had  put  them  to.  Finally,  they  said 
that  peace  required  that  the  question  be  settled  soon.  Dr.  Bangs  was 
urged  to  call  a  meeting.  “R.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  31,  1846. 

34  We  noted  this  answer  in  summarizing  opinions  on  the  prop 
erty  question  (page  152).  See  his  letter  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  31,  1846. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  159 


conferences  regarding  the  vote  on  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  of  the  preceding  Conference,  it  could  do  nothing. 
The  committee  did,  however,  call  upon  the  Conference 
to  get  such  returns  as  soon  as  practicable  and  it 
arranged  for  a  subsequent  meeting  with  the  southern 
representatives.  The  report  on  the  votes  proved  that 
the  recommendation  had  failed;  the  Conference  thus 
found  its  hands  completely  tied  and  the  southerners 
had  to  depart  unsatisfied.  The  doctrines  adopted  by 
this  Conference,  the  repudiation  of  the  Plan  and  the 
rejection  of  the  friendly  advances  of  Dr.  Pierce,  the 
fraternal  delegate  from  the  Methodist  Church,  South, 
greatly  depressed  and  discouraged  the  southerners.  35 

Although  unable  to  meet  directly  the  requests  of 
the  South  the  Conference  by  no  means  ignored  the 
problem.  The  members  freely  recognized  that  it 
would  be  unchristian  to  do  so.  They  wished  to  meet 
the  demands  in  some  fair  way.  They  were  handi¬ 
capped  by  the  vote  of  the  annual  conferences  and  by 
the  fact  that  they  represented  an  opinion  in  the  North 
opposed  to  dividing  the  property  or  to  admitting  in 
any  way  the  validity  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  Truly 
they  were  in  a  predicament.  How  could  they  extri¬ 
cate  themselves  and  at  the  same  time  carry  out  the 
wishes  of  their  constituents,  and  avoid  the  charge  of 
avarice?  The  net  result  of  their  united  cogitations 
was  the  following  scheme :  36  Expressing  their  desire 
to  go  as  far  as  their  constitutional  powers  would  per¬ 
mit,  37  they  authorized  (1)  The  Book  Agents  at  Cincin- 


35  For  the  communication  of  the  southern  commissioners  and 
the  Conference  action  thereon  see  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  43-45, 
47-48;  “Journals,  South,”  (1850),  334. 

36  “Journals,”  III.  (1848),  94-97. 

37  The  following  quotation  from  the  preamble  will  show  the 
spirit  of  the  Conference :  “And  whereas,  our  common  and  holy 


160  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

nati  to  submit  the  whole  dispute  to  voluntary  arbi 
tration,  if,  upon  consultation  with  legal  counsel,  the 
Agents  found  they  possessed  the  power  to  do  so.  (2) 
If  this  plan  proved  impossible  and  the  South  began 
legal  proceedings  the  Agents  might  propose  an  arbi¬ 
tration  under  the  authority  of  the  court.  (3)  If  the 
first  plan  proved  impracticable  and  no  suit  was  be¬ 
gun,  the  annual  conferences  should  be  appealed  to 
again  to  suspend  the  sixth  rule  in  order  to  allow  the 
submission  of  the  southern  claims  to  voluntary  arbi¬ 
tration.  38  These  provisions  laid  down  the  principles 
which  governed  the  conduct  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  on  the  jiroperty  question  until  it  was  settled 
in  the  courts. 

The  southern  press  was  quite  skeptical  about  this 
program.  From  their  point  of  view  it  was  full  of 
kinks.  The  Conference  admitted  that  it  had  no  power 
to  arbitrate  and  thus  it  could  confer  no  such  power 
on  the  Agents.  The  plan  depended  upon  too  many  con¬ 
tingencies  to  bring  a  real  solution.  If  a  voluntary 
arbitration  decided  against  her,  the  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  had  neither  the  power  nor  the  desire  to 
carry  out  the  mandate.  Then  too,  the  southern  critics 
pointed  out  that  no  time  limit  was  placed  upon  the 
Agents  who  might  purposely  delay  the  business  in- 


Christianity  prescribes  and  enjoins  the  most  pacific  measures  for  the 
settlement  of  all  matters  in  dispute  between  individuals,  as  well  as 
associations  of  professing  Christians,  and  the  whole  Christian  world 
will  expect  ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  adopt  the  most 
peaceful  and  conciliatory  measures  for  the  settlement  of  any  claim 
that  may  be  urged  against  them  : 

“And  whereas,  this  conference  desires  to  advance,  as  far  as  its 
constitutional  powers  will  authorize,  toward  an  amicable  adjustment 
of  this  difficulty:  therefore”.  ..  .etc.  “Ibid.,”  94. 

38  In  case  the  last  contingency  arose  the  bishops  were  instructed 
to  bring  this  recommendation  before  the  annual  conferences. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  161 


definitely.  39  The  Methodist  press  replied  effectively 
that  these  criticisms  did  not  take  sufficient  account  of 
the  legal  limitations  under  which  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  (1848)  had  acted.  40  But  it  was  admitted  also 
by  prominent  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  that  further  attempts  to  get  any  change  in  the 
sixth  restrictive  rule  were  hopeless  in  the  existing 
state  of  church  opinion.  41 

After  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848, 
the  southern  commissioners  waited  to  see  what  might 
come  from  plans  perfected  there.  In  September,  no 
proposal  of  arbitration  having  yet  come  from  the  Book 
Agents  it  was  decided  definitely  to  bring  suit  for  the 


39  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  13,  1848,  editorial.  There  were  plenty  of 
hints  in  the  southern  press  that  the  North  was  not  acting  in  good 
faith.  This  particular  editorial  contains  some. 

Plans  were  as  plenteous  as  the  frogs  of  Egypt.  None  “meet  the 
sincere  desire  to  dignify  the  injustice  of  the  pre-formed  decision  against 
the  claim  of  the  South,  and  to  appease  the  popular  sentiment  by  a 
plausible  affectation  of  anxiety  to  overcome,  not  the  difficulties  of 
the  question,  but  the  real  difficulty  of  parting  with  the  property.” 
The  scheme  is  got  up  to  bamboozle  the  people.  “R.  C.  A.,”  June  8,  1848. 

Speaking  of  a  comment  by  Dr.  Elliott  in  “W.  C.  A.,”  regarding 
the  reference  to  the  annual  conferences,  after  arbitration  was  found 
to  be  illegal,  under  the  plan  of  the  Conference  of  1848,  Editor  Lee 
said  :  “Can  it  be  possible  the  Editor  thinks  the  public  mind  can  be 
again  cajoled  as  it  was  by  the  trickery  scheme  of  arbitration?  The 
South  was  never  deceived  by  the  pretentions  to  arbitrate  put  forth  at 
Pittsburgh.  We  doubt  whether  the  Editors  can  a  second  time  impose 
upon  their  own  people.  ‘The  subject  will  now  be  brought  before  the 
annual  conference’  etc.  Faugh.”  “R.  C.  A.,”  Feb.  1,  1849. 

40  Perhaps  the  South  felt  that  those  limitations  were  there 
through  the  fault  of  the  annual  conferences,  and  through  their  fault 
only.  There  had  been  chance  enough  to  remove  them  if  they  had 
really  wished  to  do  so. 

41  See  Dr.  Durbin’s  reply  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Aug.  30,  1848,  to 
the  critics  of  the  General  Conference.  He  said  that  the  hopelessness 
of  trying  to  change  the  rule  was  admitted  in  conversation  between  the 
southern  commissioners  and  the  northern  sub-committee  at  the  Con¬ 
ference. 

The  editor  of  “C.  A.  and  J.”  also  thought  the  three-fourths  ma¬ 
jority  a  hopeless  one  to  obtain  when  any  basis  of  doubt  existed.  “C. 
A.  and  .T.,”  May  10,  1849,  editorial. 


162  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

funds, 42  but  the  proceedings  were  not  instituted  at 
once.  Meantime  the  New  York  Agents  had  learned 
that  they  had  no  legal  power  to  offer  voluntary  arbi¬ 
tration;  and  under  date  of  December  28,  1848,  they 
apprised  the  southern  commissioners  of  the  fact. 4a 
The  grand  scheme  had  failed  then  as  the  South  had 
predicted  it  would,  and  a  wail  of  dispair,  deeply  tinged 
with  anger  and  sarcasm  went  up  from  that  section  of 
the  country.  44  Editor  Lee  was  sure  that  it  was  all 
part  of  a  deep-laid  plot  to  defraud  the  South  and  he 
urged  an  immediate  appeal  to  the  courts.  45 

Since  voluntary  arbitration  was  impossible  and 
since  no  suit  had  as  yet  been  started,  it  therefore  be¬ 
came  the  duty  of  the  bishops  to  present  the  General 
Conference  recommendation  to  suspend  the  sixth  rule, 
to  the  annual  conferences  in  the  North.  They  were 
voting  during  the  spring  of  1849.  The  Baltimore  and 
Philadelphia  conferences  agreed  unanimously  to  sus¬ 
pend  the  rule. 46  The  New  England,  Troy,  Black 
River  and  Providence  conferences  rejected  it.  47  The 


42  “N.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  15,  1848. 

43  The  communication  is  in  “Methodist  Repository,”  from 
which  it  is  copied  into  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Jan.  25,  1849. 

44  “Methodist  Expositor,”  June  6,  1848,  copied  by  “R.  C.  A.,” 
Jan.  18,  1849.  “Thus,  in  one  single  sentence,  after  eight  month’s 
delay,  the  Book  Agents  in  New  York  and  Cincinnati  have  forever 
blasted  all  hopes  of  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  property  question." 
“This  announcement  of  the  Agents  must  settle  the  question  with  us 
all.  The  spell  is  broken  ;  the  die  is  cast ;  and  no  one  can  longer  doubt 
the  design  of  the  Northern  Church.  The  vail  of  gossamer  has  been 
removed,  and  the  actors  in  this  scene  are  naked  and  open  to  the 
view  of  a  gazing  world.” 

45  “R.  C.  A.,”  Jan.  25,  1849. 

46  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  5,  1849,  (the  vote  in  the  Baltimore  con¬ 
ference  was  133  to  O')  ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  26,  1849,  (Philadelphia  con¬ 
ference  vote). 

47  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  26,  1849,  (Providence  conference  29-48)  : 
May  17,  1849,  (New  England  conference  30  to  63)  ;  June  21,  1849, 
(Troy  conference,  66  to  79)  ;  July  12,  1849,  (Black  River,  17  to  67)  ; 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  163 


voting  was  suddenly  stopped  by  the  commencement  of 
the  suit  begun  by  the  commissioners  of  the  southern 
church.  In  thus  arresting  the  progress  of  the  vote  and 
destroying  the  only  means  of  securing  peaceful  arbi¬ 
tration,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
brought  upon  itself  considerable  criticism. 48  The 
case  involving  the  New  York  Book  Concern  was  in¬ 
stituted  in  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the 
southern  district  of  New  York,  49  and  that  involving 
the  Cincinnati  property  in  the  United  States  Circuit 
court  for  the  district  of  Ohio.  For  a  long  while  little 
was  heard  of  the  cases.  50  Finally  the  New  York  case 


July  26,  1849,  (Pittsburgh  conference  101  yeas  and  1  nay).  The  last 
issue  noted  contains  an  announcement  copied  from  “C.  A.  and  J.,” 
that  the  suit  had  commenced.  The  proposition  was  not  presented 
to  the  Maine  conference  because  the  suit  had  begun.  “R.  C.  A.,” 
Aug.  2,  1849. 

48  The  voting  in  the  annual  conferences  again,  tended  to  stir 
up  the  old  arguments  on  the  property  question  and  germinate  a  crop 
of  new  ones.  (1)  Some  said,  All  right,  since  the  South  has  appealed 
to  Caesar,  to  Caesar  let  her  go.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  10,  1849.  (2) 
Others  said  (in  “Z.  H.”)  that  they  objected  to  arbitration  as  an 
innovation  on  Methodism  —  removing  the  ancient  landmarks  —  the 
abandonment  of  an  important  feature  of  their  system  of  church  gov¬ 
ernment.  Quoted  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  May  31,  1849,  in  order  to  refute 
it. 

The  article  in  “Z.  H.”  is  typical  of  the  more  unreasonable  and 
superficial  views  of  the  time.  Dr.  Peck  (elected  by  the  Conference 
of  1848  to  succeed  Dr.  Bond  as  editor  of  “C.  A.  and  J.”)  took  the 
writer  to  task  for  his  tenderness  about  ancient  landmarks,  etc.  He 
said  that  no  landmarks  wTere  being  removed.  The  proposal  required 
simply  a  temporary  suspension  of  the  Rule.  Then  turning  to  Editor 
Hosmer’s  remarks  in  “The  Northern  Christian  Advocate”  on  the  South 
being  a  secession,  he  added  that  it  would  subject  the  church  to 
serious  criticism,  if  it  kept  putting  the  South  off  with  the  remark, 
“You  are  seceders.”  Nor  could  the  issue  be  dodged  with  an  ex¬ 
clamation  about  a  “thriftless  controversy  about  money”  leaving  the 
other  fellow  to  shift  for  himself  and  collect  if  he  could. 

49  According  to  Sutton,  “Methodist  Church  Property  Case,”  364. 
it  was  filed  June  15,  1849;  according  to  “Journals,”  III.  (1852),  126, 
it  was  filed  June  19. 

50  The  editor  of  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Oct.  31,  1850,  complained  that 
he  had  no  news  of  them. 


164  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


came  up  for  hearing  before  Judges  Nelson  and  Betts 
late  in  May,  1851. 51  The  arguments  were  very  ex¬ 
tensive  and  presented  presumably  the  very  strongest 
case  for  each  side  that  it  was  humanly  possible  to 
make.  While  nothing  essentially  new  appeared  in  these 
arguments,  they  presented  an  index  of  the  positions 
which  the  litigants  after  due  consideration  had  picked 
out  of  the  mass  of  current  opinions  as  most  tenable  and 
representative.  For  this  reason  they  are  of  some  sig¬ 
nificance. 

The  main  arguments  for  the  South  were  presented 
by  Mr.  Lord.  52  They  may  be  considered  under  three 
heads.  (1)  First,  he  argued  that  his  clients  had  a 
right  to  the  property  because  they  had  helped  to  earn 
it.  It  was  thus  no  common  charity.  The  conferences 
held  a  purely  ministerial  relation  to  the  fund.  They 
did  not  own  it,  and  if  they  used  it  for  any  purpose 
other  than  the  relief  of  the  needy  worn-out  preachers 
and  their  families,  they  would  be  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
trust.  These  dividends  were  part  payment  for  the 
work  the  preachers  had  so  unselfishly  performed  dur¬ 
ing  the  active  years  of  life.  53  (2)  Next  he  attacked 


51  Honorable  D.  Lord  and  lion.  Reverdy  Johnson  appeared  as 
chief  counsel  for  the  South,  and  Hon.  Rufus  Choate,  Mr.  Geo.  Wood, 
and  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — an  im¬ 
posing  array  of  legal  talent.  Daniel  Webster  was  retained  by  the 
South,  but  he  did  not  appear  at  the  hearing. 

There  is  a  crudely  humorous  court-room  description  of  Mr. 
Choate  in  “R.  C.  A.,”  Sept.  4,  1851. 

52  His  remarks  may  be  found  in  Sutton,  149-209.  Those  of  Mr. 
R.  Johnson,  who  supplemented  the  work  of  Mr.  Lord,  appear  on  pages 
325-67.  On  page  148  there  is  a  summary  under  eight  heads  of  the 
points  made  by  the  plaintiffs  (South). 

53  He  illustrated  the  difference  between  an  ordinary  charity 
and  the  position  of  the  worn  out  Methodist  preachers  with  respect 
to  this  church  property,  as  he  conceived  it,  as  follows  :  “A  man  comes 
to  me  for  alms  ;  it  is  a  matter  between  me  and  my  conscience  whether 
I  will  give  him  alms — he  has  no  right.  But  if  a  servant,  who  has 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  165 


the  reason  on  account  of  which,  according  to  the  de¬ 
fendants,  the  South  had  lost  this  right — namely  by 
seceding  and  forming  a  new  connection  based  upon 
the  illegal  Plan  of  Separation.  He  contended  that  the 
Plan  was  constitutional  since  there  was  no  provision 
in  the  Discipline  prohibiting  the  Conference  from 
dividing  or  sanctioning  a  division  of  the  church.  The 
delegated  General  Conference  possessed,  like  the  mass¬ 
meeting  Conference  which  existed  prior  to  1812,  all 
power  not  specifically  denied  to  it  by  the  restrictive 
rules.  Moreover,  there  had  been  but  one  condition  in 
the  Plan  which  must  be  fulfilled  before  the  new  church 
could  be  legally  constituted.  The  condition  was  that 
division  must  be  found  to  be  necessary  and  of  that 
necessity  the  South  had  been  made  the  sole  judge. 
The  border  provisions  and  the  Recommendation'  to 
change  the  sixth  rule  were,  according  to  Mr.  Lord, 
obviously  incidental  to  the  main  object  of  the  Plan. 
He  gave  a  careful  exposition  of  the  Canadian  separa¬ 
tion  to  show  that  the  General  Conference  had  possessed 
sufficient  authority  then  to  sanction  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Canadian  annual  conferences.  (3)  He  closed 
with  an  attempt  to  prove  that  the  action  of  the  Con¬ 
ference  of  1844  in  the  Bishop  Andrew  case  had  fur¬ 
nished  a  valid  reason  for  the  action  of  the  slaveholding 
conferences,  that  the  necessity  had  undoubtedly  arisen. 
He  recited  the  long  anti-slavery  controversy,  the  fan¬ 
atical  outbursts  in  New  England,  the  troubled  appeals 
of  the  bishops  to  the  church  to  leave  abolitionism  alone, 
and  the  fears  frequently  expressed  by  moderate  men 


rendered  me  services  during  the  prime  of  his  days,  upon  the  under¬ 
standing  that  I  should  take  care  of  him  in  his  old  age,  and  I  gave 
him  no  bond  for  it,  and  he  has  become  old  and  decrepit,  the  Court 
will  see  how  different  is  the  application  he  makes  to  me,  from  a 
man  with  whom  I  have  had  no  connection  at  all.”  Sutton,  153. 


166  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


that  continued  agitation  would  divide  the  church.  The 
diverse  elements  could  not  all  remain  contentedly  in 
the  church.  It  was  not  the  Harding  and  Andrew 
cases  alone,  but  a  long  series  of  disquieting  occurrences 
culminating  in  them  that  made  unity  impossible.  Thus 
the  complainants  had  a  real  ownership  in  the  funds,  for 
the  clauses  of  the  Plan  allowing  them  to  join  the  new 
connection  “without  blame”  were  valid  in  ecclesi¬ 
astical  law,  and  the  fears  of  the  South  in  asking  for 
the  Plan  were  amply  justified. 

The  chief  argument  for  the  defendants,  represent¬ 
ing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  was  made  by 
Hon.  Rufus  Choate.  54  Although  Mr.  Choate  did  not 
take  them  up  in  the  same  order,  his  main  points  were 
the  same  as  those  of  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs.  (1) 
Admitting  the  peculiar  right  of  the  ministry  to  the 
funds  in  question,  he  believed  that  this  right  lasted 
only  as  long  as  those  ministers  stayed  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  answered  to  the  description 
contemplated  by  the  rules  governing  the  fund.  Merely 
selling  books  and  thus  swelling  the  profits  of  the  Book 
Concern  gave  no  particular  claim  to  a  share  in  those 
profits.  To  be  a  worn-out  minister  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  to  continue  as  such  was  the 
sole  qualification  for  participation.  The  ministers  in 
the  new  connection  could  certainly  lay  no  claim  to  this 
relation.  (2)  This  brought  him  to  the  problem  of 
the  Plan.  While  he  contended  that  the  southerners 
could  get  no  relief,  even  if  the  Plan  was  valid,  because 


54  Mr.  Choate’s  remarks  are  found  in  Sutton,  231-291,  and  those 
of  Mr.  Wood,  who  followed  him  appear  on  pages  291-325. 

A  convenient  summary  of  defendant’s  points  is  found  on  pages 
239-31. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  167 

they  were  not  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  he  admitted  that  its  validity  involved  a  most 
important  issue.  If  the  Plan  failed  them,  they  would 
almost  confess  the  baselessness  of  their  claims.  It  was 
undeniably  illegal  and  null  and  void  from  the  start, 
said  Mr.  Choate,  because  the  Conference  had  no  right 
to  pass  it.  A  careful  review  of  Methodist  history 
was  undertaken  to  show  this.  The  church  had  been 
founded  in  1784  by  a  constituent  body  that  had  never 
reassembled.  Before  1808  the  General  Conference  had 
been  merely  an  advisory  body  which  had  gradually 
evolved  into  the  chief  administrative  organ  of  the 
church.  After  1808  it  had  expressly  denied  any 
authority  to  divide  Methodism,  especially  in  connection 
with  the  Canadian  experience.  Its  action  at  that  time 
had  been  possible  solely  because  Canada  was  a  foreign 
country.  It  had  been  no  such  exercise  of  power  as 
to  form  a  valid  precedent  for  1844.  He  admitted 
that  the  power  to  divide  the  church  must  reside  some¬ 
where  but  he  denied  that  it  resided  in  the  General  Con¬ 
ference.  (3)  But  even  if  the  Plan  was  legal  at  the 
start  it  was  now  null  because  the  stipulated  condi¬ 
tions  had  not  been  met.  The  sixth  rule  had  not  been 
suspended,  the  boundary  line  had  been  violated  by  the 
South,  and  no  real  necessity  for  separation  was  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  action  of  the  Conference  in  the  Andrew 
case.  Bishop  Andrew  had  not  been  deposed  nor  had 
the  Discipline  been  violated  in  any  respect.  Thus 
meeting  directly  the  points  of  opposing  counsel,  he 
held  that  the  South  had  lost  all  right  in  the  profits  of 
the  Book  Concern  by  severing  itself  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  that  the  Plan  was  invalid  because 
the  Conference  had  no  constitutional  right  to  enact  it, 
and  because  the  necessity  it  had  presumed  had  never 


arisen. 


168  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  arguments  counsel  for 
both  litigants,  as  well  as  the  court  itself,  united  in 
advising  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  case  out  of 
court.  55  The  suggestion  fell  upon  willing  ears.  It 
was  easy  to  see  manifest  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  a  growing  disgust  with  the  position 
in  which  it  found  itself.  56  There  is  a  long  standing 
and  commendable  prejudice  in  the  Christian  church 
against  its  members  settling  their  differences  in  the 
civil  courts.  57  The  suit  over  money  was  felt  to  be  a 
scandal,  58  and  any  chance  to  get  out  of  it  honorably 
was  eagerly  seized.  A  correspondence  was  at  once 


55  These  suggestions  are  in  Sutton,  324,  367,  367-68.  Judge 

Nelson  said :  ‘We  cannot  resist  the  desire  to  express  our  concur¬ 
rence  in  the  suggestions  that  have  been  made  by  the  learned  counsel 

on  both  sides,  that  it  would  be  much  better  for  the  interests  of  the 

Church,  for  the  interests  of  all  concerned,  if,  after  a  full  and  fair  in¬ 
vestigation,  both  of  the  facts  and  the  law  in  the  case,  the  parties 
could  amicably  take  it  up,  and  by  the  aid  of  friends  and  counsel,  come 
to  an  amicable  decision  of  the  controversy....  The  good  feeling 
and  Christian  fellowship  of  the  different  sections  of  the  Church  will 
be  much  better  by  an  amicable  and  friendly  adjustment  of  the  con¬ 
troversy  than  by  any  legal  disposition  of  it  by  the  Court.” 

56  This  was  true  even  though  the  church  remained  convinced 
that  it  was  in  no  way  to  blame  for  the  predicament. 

57  See  “Discipline”  of  1844,  45-47. 

58  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  17,  1851,  editorial :  “The  idea  of  a 

litigation  between  two  religious  bodies,  in  relation  to  money,  has  a 
rather  hard  appearance,  and  always  gives  occasion  to  scandal.  We 
have,  consequently,  always  desired  that  the  Southern  claims  might  be 
settled  in  some  other  way....  We  would  prefer,  were  it  possible, 
to  give  the  Southern  organization  all  they  claim,  to  a  long,  tedious 
litigation.  In  this,  however,  we  have  made  no  concession  to  the 
legality  or  justice  of  the  claim.” 

The  “Northern  C.  A.”  (see  item  copied  into  “R.  C.  A.,”  June  12, 
1851)  said:  “We  have  no  pleasure  in  adverting  to  this  unhappy  con¬ 
troversy,  and  should  not  now  have  referred  to  it,  but  from  the  fact 
that  the  suit  is  in  progress.” 

The  Buffalo  Christian  Advocate  (see  item  copied  into  “R.  C.  A.,” 
June  12,  1851)  said:  “For  a  prorata  portion  of  this  money  the 
Southern  branch  have  taken  legal  measures  to  obtain... and  by 
the  bye,  what  a  humiliating  transaction  does  the  whole  affair  pre¬ 
sent  !  Better,  in  our  opinion,  if  the  million  of  dollars  had  been 
swallowed  up  in  the  deep.” 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTON  169 


begun  looking  toward  arbitration.  59  No  sooner  had 
it  opened,  however,  than  there  appeared  a  chasm  of 
difference  that  at  once  doomed  the  whole  beneficent 
plan.  To  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  an  arbitra¬ 
tion  meant  that  the  whole  question,  including  the  valid¬ 
ity  of  the  southern  claim  to  the  property,  should  be 
passed  upon  by  the  arbitrators.  In  their  view  the 
southern  right  to  any  of  the  property  was  the  only 
issue.  The  South  could  not  take  this  view.  It  stood 
squarely  on  the  validity  and  binding  character  of  the 
Plan  which  was  based  on  the  admitted  justice  and 
equity  of  her  claims.  According  to  the  South,  the  only 
matter  to  arbitrate  was  the  size  of  her  share,  and  the 
method  of  payment.  From  that  position  the  southern 
church  would  not  be  pushed  for  any  consideration. 
The  negotiations  deadlocked  at  once,  and  the  high 
hopes  of  the  parties  for  a  friendly  settlement  out  of 
court  faded. 60  Evidence  multiplies  of  the  widely 
different  grooves  in  which  northern  and  southern 
thoughts  were  flowing  and  the  consequent  inability  of 
men  to  understand  each  other. 

Thus  the  decision  of  the  case  devolved  upon  the 
court  after  all.  On  November  11,  1851,  Judge  Nelson 
read  its  decision  which  was  in  favor  of  the  plaintiffs 
(South)  on  every  material  point.  The  court  accepted 
almost  every  one  of  the  familiar  arguments  for  the 
validity  of  the  Plan,  and  from  that  almost  as  from  a 
hook,  the  whole  case  swung.  It  is  unnecessary  to  fol¬ 
low  the  judge’s  argument.  We  have  done  so  already 
in  the  arguments  of  the  attorneys.  He  decided  that 


59  This  correspondence  is  found  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Sept.  25,  1851. 

60  For  a  northern  view  and  a  southern  view  of  this  point  see 
“C.  A.  and  J.,”  July  17,  1851  ;  “R.  C.  A.,”  April  26,  1849. 


170  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


the  superannuated  preachers  in  the  southern  church 
were  as  fully  entitled  to  their  share  of  the  profits  of 
the  Book  Concern  as  were  those  of  the  North.  31  The 
decision  was  variously  received.  The  South  was  jubil¬ 
ant.  62  “Zion’s  Herald”  said  that  some  would  lay  the 
defeat  of  the  North  to  the  pro-slavery  sentiment  pre¬ 
vailing  in  the  region  of  the  trial,  but  that  for  the 
most  part  the  church  would  accept  it  as  an  impartial 
rendering  of  the  law.  63  “The  Northern  Christian  Ad¬ 
vocate”  denounced  it  as  a  political  decision,  remarking 
that  the  judges  as  well  as  the  politicians  must  be 
allowed  to  raise  a  little  cotton.  64  The  great  official 
organ  at  New  York  said  that  the  decision  opened  the 
way  for  the  General  Conference  to  make  any  absurd 
division  in  the  church  it  chose.  The  editor  reaffirmed 


61  Bascom  et  al.  vs.  Lane  et  al.,  Brunner,  “Collected  Cases,” 
I.  348-72  ;  “Federal  Cases,”  No.  1089. 

62  Editor  Lee  of  the  “It.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  20,  1851,  found  abundant 
sarcasm  for  Messrs.  Peck,  Elliott,  etc. 

63  “Z.  FI.,”  Nov.  19,  1851.  The  editor  himself  felt  that  it  gave 
a  most  mischievous  construction  to  the  economy  of  the  church,  un¬ 
settling  some  of  the  most  fundamental  securities. 

He  brought  out  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  against  the  de¬ 
cision.  The  court,  he  said,  had  interpreted  the  church  government  to 
l>e  a  hierarchical  despotism  which  needed  an  immediate  overhauling. 
If  it  had  judged  of  this  power  from  the  absence  of  restrictions  in 
the  written  law  of  the  church,  the  court  was  excusable,  for  a  large 
part  of  the  real  constitution  was  unwritten — implied  and  embodied  in 
usages  and  precedents,  like  the  British  constitution.  One  must  not 
look  merely  at  the  written  law. 

There  is  truth  in  this  contention.  The  preachers  would  have 
denied  almost  unanimously  that  the  church  government  was  in  reality 
what  it  certainly  was  in  form — a  government  of  general  powers  sub¬ 
ject  only  to  a  few  specific  restrictions.  The  preachers’  views 

harmonized  thus  with  their  political  thinking  and  expexuence. 

As  to  his  charge  that  the  decision  made  the  church  out  to  be 
a  “hierarchical  despotism,”  we  may  remark  that  whatever  it  may 
be  today,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  those  days  was  by  no 
means  a  rampant  democracy.  Insurgent  Methodists  had  habitually 
criticized  it  on  this  ground  throughout  its  earlier  history. 

64  Copied  into  “R.  C.  A.,”  Nov.  27,  1851. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  171 


his  loyalty  to  the  familiar  northern  doctrines.  65  ‘ 1  The 

Pittsburgh  Christian  Advocate,”  which  all  through 
this  miserable  affray  had  evinced  decidedly  moderate 
tendencies,  was  inclined  to  rejoice  at  the  validation  of 
the  Plan.  The  editor  considered  it  a  document  em¬ 
bodying  real  Christian  sentiments,  “and  worthy  to  be 
written  in  letters  of  gold.  ’  ’  66 

The  Ohio  suit  involving  the  Western  Book  Concern 
was  argued  in  1852  and  was  decided  against  the  south¬ 
ern  church.  Judges  Leavitt  and  McLean  were  to  have 
heard  the  arguments  but  the  latter  being  a  Methodist, 
refrained,  for  obvious  reasons,  from  sitting  on  the  case. 
The  court  adopted  the  contentions  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  full,  finding  for  it  on  every 
point. 67  This  decision  of  course  set  the  southern 


65  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Nov.  20,  1851.  Answering  the  judge’s 
question  as  to  what  the  beneficiaries  had  done  to  be  deprived  of  their 
share  of  the  funds,  he  said,  “They  have  simply  ceased  to  be  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — that  is  all ;  and  isn’t  that 
enough?” — another  illustration  of  the  completeness  with  which  some 
leaders  of  opinion  in  the  North  had  eliminated  from  their  thinking  the 
Plan  of  Separation. 

66  Copied  into  “R.  C.  A.,”  Dec.  4,  1851. 

“It  is,”  the  editor  wrote,  “a  document,  after  all  the  fustian  and 
sophistry  which  have  been  employed  to  vilify  it,  and  prove  it  un¬ 
constitutional,  which  is  full  of  the  divine  wisdom  of  Christianity,  and 
worthy  to  be  written  in  letters  of  gold.” 

In  the  “Pittsburgh  C.  A.,”  Oct.  22,  1845,  also,  there  is  a  very 
interesting  editorial  favoring  the  constitutionality  of  the  Plan. 

For  sharp  criticism  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
secular  press  see  “Cumming’s  Evening  Bulletin”  on  Nelson’s  decision 
quoted  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Jan.  29,  1852,  and  controverted  by  the 
editor ;  also  remarks  of  “National  Intelligencer’s”  correspondent 
quoted  in  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  4,  1851,  and  attacked  by  the  editor. 

67  The  decision  is  in  5  “McLean,”  369-422  ;  “Federal  Cases,” 
No.  13112.  Among  the  points  made  in  the  decision  are  the  following  : 
(1)  The  Conference  is  a  delegated  or  x-epresentative  body  acting 
under  a  written  constitution.  It  is  a  general  canon  of  interpretation 
in  such  cases  to  consider  the  body  a  strictly  limited  one,  capable  of 
performing  only  those  acts  specifically  authorized  or  implied  by  fair 
interpretation.  It  is  absurd  to  think  the  church  ever  intended  to 


172  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Methodists  to  complaining  in  much  the  same  tone  that 
the  northerners  had  adopted  at  the  New  York  decision. 
It  was  due,  some  said,  to  lobby  influence  overcoming 
clear  convictions  of  moral  equity  and  legal  right.  68 
Others  bewailed  the  enforced  sufferings  of  widows  and 
orphans  who  thus  lost  their  chief  means  of  support.  69 
Naturally,  too,  the  North  was  highly  elated  at  the 
decisive  way  in  which  Judge  Leavitt  sustained  its 
views. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  wTas  urged  by  its 
supporters  to  appeal  Judge  Nelson’s  decision  to  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court. 70  Once  it  was  an¬ 
nounced  that  such  an  appeal  would  be  made,  but  71 
the  case  was  never  carried  up.  Judge  McLean,  a  real 
peacemaker,  succeeded  in  getting  the  representatives 
of  the  two  churches  to  agree  on  a  final  settlement. 
This  was  the  more  easily  done  since  an  appraisal  of  the 
Book  Concern  by  the  Master  appointed  by  the  Court 
promised  to  be  a  tedious  and  litigious  proceeding.  The 
joint  meetings  in  New  York  (beginning  Nov.  26,  1853) 
were  presided  over  by  Judge  McLean.  After  trying 
in  vain  to  get  the  Cincinnati  Agents  to  come  into  the 


give  the  Conference  power  to  destroy  it.  (2)  Since  the  annual  con¬ 
ferences  refused  to  modify  the  sixth  rule,  the  church  has  no  power 
to  apportion  the  funds.  (3)  The  Book  Concern  Funds  being  a 
charity  for  a  special  class,  anyone  withdrawing  from  that  class 
ceases  to  be  a  beneficiary.  (4)  Any  individual  or  section  may  with¬ 
draw  from  the  church  but  can  take  with  them  no  right  to  share  in 
the  property  they  enjoyed  as  members.  (5)  In  withholding  the 
dividends  the  Agents  were  guilty  of  no  breach  of  trust.  (6)  It  is 
not  a  case  of  lapsed  charity.  The  court  cannot  reconstruct  a  plan 
to  distribute  it.  No  decree  can  be  given. 

68  “N.  C.  A.,”  Oct.  28,  1852. 

69  “St.  Louis  Christian  Advocate,”  Oct.  28,  1852. 

70  See  resolutions  of  the  Milwaukee  district  ministers’  associ¬ 
ation  urging  appeal.  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Jan.  1,  1852. 

71  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Jan.  22,  1852. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  173 


arbitration  72  the  eastern  Agents  went  on  alone.  A 
series  of  proposals  and  counterproposals  ended  in  an 
agreement  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  This  was  em¬ 
bodied  in  a  decree  of  the  court.  When  the  work  was 
completed  a  most  happy  interchange  of  congratulations 
occurred.  73 

By  this  agreement  the  South  was  awarded  $191,- 
000  in  cash  and  available  funds;  the  printing  presses 
and  offices  at  Richmond,  Charleston  and  Nashville, 
valued  at  $20,000,  and  debts  owed  the  Concern  by 
southern  Methodists  amounting  to  $64,000 — a  grand 
total  of  $275,000.  The  money  was  to  be  paid  in  in¬ 
stalments  running  into  the  year  1862.  74  The  trustees 
of  the  Chartered  Fund  also  came  forward  and  divided 
with  the  South  at  the  same  time,  and  their  agreement 
was  embodied  in  the  decree.  From  this  source  the 
South  obtained  about  $17,000.  75  The  South  appealed  76 


72  They  had  won  their  case  in  the  lower  court  and  did  not  wish 
to  lose  that  advantage.  There  was  also  a  question  of  their  legal  right 
to  accept  the  judge’s  invitation. 

73  “C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  8.  1853. 

74  For  the  New  York  settlement  see  editorial  in  “C.  A.  and 
J.,”  Jan.  19,  1854 ;  and  “Great  Secession,”  726-33.  Dr.  Elliott  said 
that  his  account  was  made  up  from  the  minutes  of  the  meetings  of 
the  commissioners  handed  him  by  the  secretary.  “Journals,”  III. 
(1856),  276;  “Journals,  South,”  (1854),  336-38. 

High  praise  was  deservedly  awarded  to  Judge  McLean  for  his 
valuable  services  as  peace-maker.  In  its  later  phase  the  settlement 
was  conducted  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  1852. 

75  “Journals,  South,”  (1854),  337.  The  exact  amount  was 
$17,052.05,  to  which  was  later  added  $208.89.  “Journals,  South,” 
(1858),  502. 

76  In  “Z.  H.,”  Feb.  8,  1854,  there  is  an  editorial  quoted  from 
“W.  C.  A.,”  in  which  the  action  of  the  trustees  of  the  Chartered 
Fund  is  criticized  and  there  is  also  an  implied  criticism  of  the  New 
York  settlement  without  appeal.  “Z.  H.,”  “Northern  C.  A.,”  and 
“W.  C.  A.,”  all  seemed  in  hearty  accord  with  the  Cincinnati  Agents 
in  their  refusal  to  settle  out  of  Court.  This  much  may  be  gathered 
from  the  article  in  “Z.  H.,”  just  referred  to. 


174  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


the  Cincinnati  case  which  was  therefore  argued  be¬ 
fore  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the 
spring  of  1854.  April  24,  a  unanimous  77  decision  in 
favor  of  the  South  was  handed  down.  78  Judge  Nelson 
wrote  and  delivered  the  opinion  which  naturally 
followed  closely  the  reasoning  of  his  earlier  decision  in 
the  lower  court.  Following  now  the  example  of  the 
New  York  arbitration,  the  parties  got  together,  agreed 
on  a  settlement  which  was  embodied  in  a  decree  79  of 
the  Court.  It  gave  the  South  $80,000  in  cash  and  in 
book  stock.  80  This  decision  and  settlement  closed  the 
long  conflict  over  the  property  and  also  the  direct 
quarrel  between  the  churches  which  had  grown  out  of 
the  slavery  question  and  the  legislation  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844. 

Our  task  is  done.  It  is  a  long  and  crowded  era 
from  the  beginnings  of  the  abolitionist  agitations  in 
New  England  to  the  settlement  of  the  property  question 
at  the  bar  of  the  highest  court  in  the  land.  The  sub¬ 
ject  fairly  glows  with  hot  contention.  If  one  has  an 
interest  in  seeing  either  side  vindicated  there  is  no 
lack  of  valid  argument  upon  which  to  build  an  ex¬ 
cellent  case.  Were  the  ultra  abolitionists  wise? 
Was  Bishop  Andrew  fairly  and  legally  dealt  with? 


77  Judge  McLean  again,  for  reasons  already  noted,  declined  to 
sit  on  the  case. 

78  Smith  et  al.  vs.  Swormstedt  et  al.,  16  “Howard,”  288-313. 

79  April  7,  1855. 

80  For  this  settlement  see  “Journals,  South,”  (1858),  501-502, 
report  of  the  southern  commissionei’s ;  “Journals,”  III.  (1856),  249-55, 
report  of  the  commissioners  on  the  church  suit  in  the  West. 

The  $80,000  was  to  consist  of  $60,000  cash,  and  $20,000  in  book 
stock.  The  cash  was  to  be  paid  within  five  years. 

There  is  a  large  amount  of  material  and  comment  on  all  three 
cases  in  Elliott,  “Great  Secession,”  713-816  ;  also  “Ibid.,”  Documents, 
74,  75. 


SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  PROPERTY  QUESTION  175 


Was  the  South  rightly  aggrieved  at  his  treatment? 
Would  New  England  have  justly  felt  aggrieved  if  the 
issue  had  been  postponed?  Was  the  Plan  of  Separation 
a  wise  and  constitutional  means  of  grappling  with  the 
terrifying  dilemma  ?  Did  it  divide,  or  sanction  a 
division  of,  the  church?  Was  it  wisely  nullified  in 
1848?  Should  the  annual  conferences  have  modified 
the  sixth  restrictive  rule  in  1844-1845?  Should  the 
South  have  delayed  the  beginning  of  the  suit  in 
1849  until  the  second  vote  on  modifying  the  rule  had 
been  completed  and  counted?  Was  the  Supreme  Court 
decision  good  law  and  good  morals  ?  Honest  men  have 
answered  every  one  of  these  questions  in  directly 
opposite  ways. 

It  is  manifest  from  our  discussion  that  we  tend  on 
the  whole  toward  the  opinion  that  the  Plan  was  wise, 
eminently  Christian  and  constitutional,  81  (although  we 
express  this  view  with  the  greatest  diffidence),  and 
that  Judge  Nelson’s  decision  affirming  it  worked  more 
complete  justice  than  Judge  Leavitt’s  would  have  done 
had  it  stood.  A  very  large  portion  of  the  church  felt 
it  necessary  to  withdraw.  The  dilemma  was  not 
wholly  of  their  making.  Had  the  situation  been  re- 


si  Many  in  the  northern  church  felt  naturally  that  the  slavery 
influence  in  the  courts  controlled  the  decision.  That  there  was  such 
an  influence  in  the  courts  at  that  time  none  will  now  deny,  though 
the  fact  that  the  church  decision  was  handed  down  by  a  unanimous 
bench  militates  somewhat  against  the  view  that  the  slavery  influence 
was  all-powerful.  However,  it  may  be  noted  that  Judge  Nelson  wras 
usually  in  harmony  with  Chief  Justice  Taney  (Judicial  Committee, 
“Hist,  of  the  Supreme  Court,”  339-40.  There  is  here  a  brief  biography 
of  Judge  Nelson),  while  Judge  McLean  usually  favored  northern 
interests.  As  we  saw,  he  did  not  take  part  in  the  case. 

Is  it  possible  that  his  activity  in  the  New  York  settlement,  with¬ 
out  appeal,  showed  that  he  was  not  favorably  impressed  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  case?  The  writer  feels  that  the  as¬ 
sumption  of  pro-slavery  influence  is  not  needed  to  explain  the  Supreme 
Court’s  decision  in  this  case. 


176  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

versed  in  1844,  had  the  Conference  been  controlled  by 
the  South,  large  sections  in  the  North  would  have  felt 
with  equal  keenness  the  necessity  of  a  separation.  The 
deadlock  was  painful  and  overwhelming.  Long  had 
they  labored  together  in  a  grand  cause.  Now  they 
must  part.  What  more  beautiful  and  Christian  than 
that  they  should  mutually  agree  on  a  friendly  division 
of  the  church  and  its  common  funds?  So  thought  the 
Conference  of  1844.  So  thought  many  noble  souls 
in  the  North.  So  we  think. 

This  conflict  ended  long  ago.  The  leaders  and 
the  members  of  those  days  have  ceased  their  labors. 
Most  of  the  issues  are  dead.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
live  together  today  on  terms  of  Christian  fraternal- 
ism.  Why  not  close  the  chasm  that  still  keeps  them 
distinct  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions,  and  restore  the 
old-time  organic  unity?  We  believe  they  can.  We 
trust  that  in  due  time,  and  with  proper  preparation, 
they  will.  We  wish  them  success  and  Godspeed  in 
the  attempt. 


Appendix  I 


THE  CONSTITUTION  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  1844 

The  growth  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  been  very  rapid.  Starting  with  a  mere  handful 
of  members  in  the  sixties  of  the  preceding  century,  by 
1844  it  had  grown  to  more  than  1,000,000. 1  The 
church  also  possessed  a  very  efficient  and  noteworthy 
polity,  to  which,  as  many  believed,  it  owed  in  part  its 
wonderful  success.  It  is  proposed  to  describe  here  in 
outline  this  constitutional  machinery. 

The  chief  organ  of  government  was  then  (1844),  as 
now,  the  General  Conference,  which  consisted  of  a 
delegate  for  every  twenty-one  members  of  an  annual 
conference.  The  delegates  were  elected  by  the  annual 
conferences.  It  met  once  in  four  years  from  1792  on, 
beginning  its  sessions  on  the  first  day  of  May  and  con¬ 
tinuing  usually  about  a  month.  The  place  of  meeting 
was  always  designated  by  the  Conference  itself.  The 
bishops  were  ex-officio  presidents  of  the  body  and 
occupied  the  chair  in  turn.  The  Conference  was  given 
a  full  grant  of  powers  to  “make  rules  and  regulations 


1  Whites  1,021,818 

Colored  145,409 

Indian  4,129 

Traveling  preachers  4,282 

Superannuated  preachers  339 

Local  preachers  8,087 


1,184,064 

“Minutes  of  the  annual  conferences,”  III.  477. 


178  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

for  the  church”  under  certain  restrictions.  These  re¬ 
strictions  were  designated  as  the  six  restrictive  rules 
and  were  in  substance  as  follows:  (1)  The  Conference 
could  not  “revoke,  alter  or  change”  the  articles  of 
religion,  or  make  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine. 
(2)  It  could  not  change  the  basis  of  representation, 
or  (3)  destroy  the  general  itinerant  superintendency, 
by  making  the  bishops  local,  or  otherwise,  or  (4) 
change  or  revoke  the  rules  of  the  United  Societies, 
which  had  come  down  from  the  days  of  Wesley,  and 
regulated  the  ethical  conduct  of  Wesleyan  Methodists. 
(5)  The  Conference  must  not  take  away  the  right  of 
ministers  and  members  to  trial  and  appeal;  and  (6) 
it  “shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern,  nor  of  the  Charter  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other 
than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernumerary, 
superannuated  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows  and  children.”  All  except  the  first  of  these 
rules  might  be  amended  by  a  concurrent  vote  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  several  annual  conferences  and  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  General  Conference.  Either 
authority,  however,  might  take  the  initiative.  2 

Under  the  General  Conference  there  were  in  1844, 
(May  1),  thirty-three  annual  conferences.  The  term 
annual  conference  had  as  it  still  has  a  double  meaning. 
It  denoted  a  geographical  division  of  the  church,  and 
also  the  annual  meeting  of  all  the  traveling  preachers 
in  full  connection  within  that  division.  3  This  meeting 
formed  the  administrative  and  judicial  body  for  the 


2  For  the  general  form  and  powers  of  the  General  Conference 
see  “Journals,”  I.  88,  89,  90,  93,  95.  The  ratio  was  made  1  to  21 
in  1836.  “Ibid.,”  I.  496.  The  method  of  amendment  indicated  in  the 
text  was  adopted  in  1832.  “Ibid.,”  I.  378,  383. 

3  For  the  boundaries  of  these  conferences  see  map ;  also  the 
“Discipline”  of  1840,  151-158,  and  “Journals,”  II.  77-81. 


APPENDIX  I 


179 


annual  conference  under  the  authority  of  the  General 
Conference.  The  bishop  was  the  regular  presiding 
officer  of  the  annual  conference.  Its  chief  functions 
were  to  pass  on  the  admission  of  preachers  to  full 
conference  membership,  try  preachers,  annually  in¬ 
vestigate  the  character  of  the  preachers,  report  sta¬ 
tistics  of  membership  and  contributions,  and  hear  the 
appointments  of  the  preachers  for  the  ensuing  year. 
These  appointments  were  always  made  by  the  bishops.4 

The  episcopacy  consisted  of  a  number  of  bishops 
fixed  from  time  to  time  by  the  General  Conference. 
In  1844  there  were  five — Bishops  Soule,  Andrew,  Hed- 
ding,  Waugh  and  Morris.  At  the  General  Conference 
of  that  year,  two  new  men  were  elected  to  the  office — 
Messrs.  Hamlin  and  Janes.  Bishops  were  elected  by 
the  General  Conference  and  consecrated  by  incumbent 
bishops  or  by  elders  if  there  happened  to  be  no  bishops. 
Their  duties  included  presiding  at  the  general  and 
annual  conferences,  fixing  the  appointments  of 
preachers,  receiving,  changing  and  suspending  preach¬ 
ers  between  the  sessions  of  the  conferences,  traveling 
throughout  the  church  and  supervising  its  temporal 
and  spiritual  affairs.  They  were  responsible  to  the 
General  Conference  which  might  expel  them  for  im¬ 
proper  conduct.  They  were  the  sole  judges  in  all 
questions  of  law  arising  in  an  annual  conference. 
Usually  soon  after  the  sessions  of  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  the  bishops  convened  to  map  out  the  travels 
and  visits  of  each  bishop  to  the  annual  conferences  for 
the  succeeding  four  years.  5 


4  Emory,  “Hist,  of  the  Discipline.”  114-115 ;  “Discipline”  of 
1840,  23-26. 

5  Tigert,  “Constitutional  Hist.,”  389-95 ;  “Discipline”  of  1840, 
26-29. 


180  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

The  presiding  elder  was,  in  effect,  a  local  bishop. 
He  had  charge  of  the  preachers  and  officials  within 
his  district,  which  was  a  geographical  sub-division  of 
an  annual  conference,  and  presided  at  the  quarterly 
meeting  conferences — gatherings  of  the  officials  of  a 
single  charge,  or  group  of  societies  under  one  minister. 
He  attended  the  bishop  when  the  latter  visited  the 
district,  and  between  visits  the  elder  kept  his  superior 
informed  in  regard  to  local  affairs.  The  presiding 
elders  were  appointed  by  the  bishops.  6 

The  traveling  preachers  were  the  center  and  back¬ 
bone  of  Methodism.  They  bore  the  brunt  of  the  work 
of  upbuilding  and  maintaining  the  church.  They 
were  elected  after  probation,  by  the  annual  conference 
to  full  membership  therein,  and  consecrated  in  due 
form.  It  was  their  duty  to  baptize,  administer  the 
Lord’s  supper  and  conduct  the  regular  worship  of  the 
church.  Traveling  elders  and  traveling  preachers  were 
synonymous  terms. 

The  smallest  unit  in  the  church  was  the  local 
society,  or  church,  with  its  congregation,  its  classes, 
class-leaders,  stewards,  exhorters,  trustees,  Sunday 
school  superintendents,  local  preachers,  superannuated 
preachers,  etc.  The  superannuated  preachers  were 
men  who  were  worn  out  and  had  retired;  the  super¬ 
numerary  preachers  were  men  who  were  only  partty 
active,  doing  only  such  work  under  the  direction  of 
the  annual  conference  as  their  strength  would  permit. 
The  local  preachers  were  men  authorized  to  preach,  and 
who  did  preach,  but  who  depended  for  a  living  upon 
some  secular  occupation.  This  class  of  men  does  a 


6  “Discipline”  of  1844,  29-32. 


APPENDIX  I 


181 


large  share  of  the  preaching  at  the  present  time  among 
the  English  Wesleyan  Methodists. 

Such  in  outline  was  the  economy  of  the  great 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  just  prior  to  its  disrup¬ 
tion.  For  further  detail  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Emory,  “ History  of  the  Discipline,”  where  a  full  ac¬ 
count  of  the  changes  up  to  that  time  may  be  found; 
and  to  the  “ Discipline”  of  1840  itself,  where  the  doc¬ 
trines,  economy,  and  ideals  of  the  church  are  fully 
set  forth. 


Appendix  II 


THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  NINE 

OR 

THE  PLAN  OF  SEPARATION  OF  1844 

Whereas,  a  declaration  has  been  presented  to  this 
General  Conference,  with  the  signatures  of  fifty-one 
delegates  of  the  body,  from  thirteen  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences  in  the  slaveholding  states,  representing  that, 
for  various  reasons  enumerated,  the  objects  and  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  church  organization 
cannot  be  successfully  accomplished  by  them  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  as  now  con¬ 
stituted;  and 

Whereas,  in  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contin¬ 
gency  to  which  the  declaration  asks  attention  as  not 
improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Con¬ 
ference  to  meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness 
and  the  strictest  equity;  therefore, 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled. 

1.  That,  should  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  states  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  dis¬ 
tinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  the  following  rule  shall 
be  observed  with  regard  to  the  northern  boundary  of 
such  connection :  All  the  societies,  stations,  and  Con¬ 
ferences  adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by  a 
vote  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of  said  societies, 
stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain  under  the  un¬ 
molested  pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church ;  and 
the  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall 


APPENDIX  II 


183 


in  no  wise  attempt  to  organize  churches  or  societies 
within  the  limits  of  the  Church  South,  nor  shall  they 
attempt  to  exercise  any  pastoral  oversight  therein;  it 
being  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the  South  recip¬ 
rocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations, 
societies,  and  Conferences  adhering,  by  vote  of  a  ma¬ 
jority,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  provided 
also,  that  this  rule  shall  apply  only  to  societies,  stations, 
and  Conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  and 
not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases  be  left 
to  the  care  of  that  church  within  whose  territory  they 
are  situated. 

2.  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every 
grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  church,  or,  without 
blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church  South. 

3.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  we 
recommend  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  at  their  first 
approaching  sessions,  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  so  that  the  first  clause  shall  read 
thus:  “they  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  other 
purpose  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  super¬ 
numerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers, 
their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other 
purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the  votes  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference.” 

4.  That  whenever  the  Annual  Conferences,  by  a 
vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their  members  voting  on  the 
third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  recom¬ 
mendation  to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the 
Agents  at  New-York  and  Cincinnati  shall,  and  they  are 


184  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any 
authorized  agent  or  appointee  of  the  Church  South, 
should  one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book  accounts 
against  the  ministers,  church  members,  or  citizens  with¬ 
in  its  boundaries,  with  authority  to  collect  the  same  for 
the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  that  said 
Agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee 
of  the  South  all  the  real  estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the 
property,  including  presses,  stock,  and  all  right  and 
interest  connected  with  the  printing  establishments 
at  Charleston,  Richmond,  and  Nashville,  which  now 
belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

5.  That  when  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have 
approved  the  aforesaid  change  in  the  sixth  restrictive 
article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the  above  agent 
of  the  Southern  Church  so  much  of  the  capital  and  pro¬ 
duce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  as  will,  with  the 
notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  and  etc.,  mentioned  in 
the  last  resolution,  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the 
whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the  travelling 
preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the 
travelling  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church ;  the  division  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  travelling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming 
Minutes. 

6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form 
of  annual  payments  of  $25,000  per  annum,  and  speci¬ 
fically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern 
notes  and  accounts  due  the  establishment,  and  accru¬ 
ing  after  the  first  transfer  mentioned  above ;  and  until 
the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church  shall 
share  in  all  the  net  profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the 
proportion  that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in  arrears, 
bears  to  all  the  property  of  the  Concern. 


APPENDIX  II 


185 


7.  That  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and  James 
B.  Finley  be,  and  they  are  hereby  appointed  com¬ 
missioners  to  act  in  concert  with  the  same  number  of 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  Southern  organization, 
(should  one  be  formed),  to  estimate  the  amount  which 
will  fall  due  to  the  South  by  the  preceding  rule,  and 
to  have  full  powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole 
arrangements  proposed  with  regard  to  the  division  of 
property,  should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by 
any  means  a  vacancy  occurs  in  this  board  of  com¬ 
missioners,  the  Book  Committee  at  New-York  shall  fill 
that  vacancy. 

8.  That  whenever  any  agents  of  the  Southern 
Church  are  clothed  with  legal  authority  or  corporate 
power  to  act  in  the  premises,  the  Agents  at  New-York 
are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  act  in  concert 
with  said  Southern  agents,  so  as  to  give  the  provisions 
of  these  resolutions  a  legally  binding  force. 

9.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  colleges, 
schools,  Conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every 
kind  within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization, 
shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up  on  the  part 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this 
resolution  can  be  of  force  in  the  premises. 

10.  That  the  church  so  formed  in  the  South  shall 
have  a  common  right  to  use  all  the  copy-rights  in 
possession  of  the  Book  Concerns  at  New-York  and  Cin¬ 
cinnati  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  by  the  commis¬ 
sioners. 

11.  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New-York  be 
directed  to  make  such  compensation  to  the  Con- 


186  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

ferences  South,  for  their  dividend  from  the  Chartered 
Fund,  as  the  commissioners  above  provided  for  shall 
agree  upon. 

12.  That  the  Bishops  be  respectfully  requested 
to  lay  that  part  of  this  report  requiring  the  action  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  before  them  as  soon  as  pos¬ 
sible,  beginning  with  the  New-York  Conference. 1 


1  “Journals,”  II.  (1844),  135-37. 


Appendix  III 


POLITICAL  IMPLICATIONS  OP  THE  SCHISM. 

JOHN  C.  CALHOUN  AND  THE  GENERAL 
CONFERENCE  OF  1844 

It  seems  desirable  to  present  a  more  extensive  ac¬ 
count  of  this  phase  of  the  subject  with  more  copious 
extracts  from  the  sources  relating  to  it  in  the  form  of 
an  appendix,  rather  than  to  burden  the  footnotes  with 
it. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  widespread  char¬ 
acter  of  the  sentiment  that  the  ecclesiastical  schism  en¬ 
dangered  directly  or  indirectly  the  perpetuity  of  the 
federal  union.  The  backwoods  preacher,  Peter  Cart¬ 
wright,  said,  “this  dreadful  rupture  in  the  Methodist 
Church  spread  terror  over  almost  every  other  branch 
of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and  really,  disguise  it 
as  we  may,  it  shook  the  pillars  of  our  American  gov¬ 
ernment  to  the  center,  and  many  of  our  ablest  states¬ 
men  were  alarmed,  and  looked  upon  it  as  the  entering 
wedge  of  political  disunion,  and  a  fearful  step  toward 
the  downfall  of  our  happy  republic.’’  1  J.  F.  Wright, 
of  Cincinnati,  writing  to  Bishop  Andrew  October  3, 
1844,  said,  “I  most  firmly  believe  if  this  division  takes 
place  civil  commotions  will  immediately  follow,  for 
there  are  certainly  more  reasons  for  the  separation  of 
the  States  than  for  the  division  of  the  church,  and  it 
soon  might  be  pleaded  as  a  matter  obviously  necessary 
and  indispensable  to  the  South.  ’  ’  2  In  June,  1844,  ‘ 1  The 


1  “Autobiography,”  (completed  in  185G),  439. 

2  Smith,  “Andrew,”  371. 


188  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Charleston  Mercury”  hailed  the  issue  of  the  minority 
Protest  in  the  General  Conference,  as  possessing  high 
rank  4  4  for  it  marks  an  epoch — the  first  dissolution  of  the 
Union .”3  Dr.  Wightman  of  4 4 The  Southern  Christian 
Advocate”  said  that  the  ecclesiastical  division  would 
prove  to  the  country  that  southern  forbearance  had 
its  limits,  and  that  abolitionism  would  be  resisted  at 
all  costs.  4  4  Thus  a  check  will  be  put  upon  a  movement, 
which,  more  than  all  other  causes  of  discord  put  to¬ 
gether,  threatens  the  political  union.”4  To  quote 
4 4 The  Charleston  Mercury”  again,  4 4 The  two  greatest 
religious  sects  in  the  United  States  [Baptists  and 
Methodists]  sever  a  union  that  was  thought  to  be 
secured  by  indissoluble  tie;s...and  that  separation, 
too,  making  the  precise  line  between  the  slaveholding 
and  the  free  states  and  growing  out  of  the  acknowl¬ 
edged  impossibility  of  the  two  peoples  acting  peaceably 
together....  Mr.  Clay  5  sees  it  in  its  true  light — a 
dissension  that  turns  one  of  the  strongest  bands  of 
the  political  union  into  a  destroying  sword — yet  even 
he  shrinks  from  the  expression  of  more  than  a  dark 
foreboding.”  6 

Speaking  in  the  United  States  Senate  on  the  Com¬ 
promise  of  1850,  John  C.  Calhoun  said:  Many  different 
bands  hold  the  Union  together,  and  these  are  not 
wholly  political.  The  strongest  of  the  non-political 
ties  consisted  in  the  unity  of  the  great  religious  de¬ 
nominations  which  originally  embraced  the  whole 
Union.  Their  unity  helped  to  hold  the  political  union 
together.  4  4  The  first  of  these  cords  which  snapped, 


3  “S.  C.  A.,”  June  28,  1844. 

4  “Ibid.,”  Nov.  22,  1844. 

5  See  below. 

6  Quoted  in  68  “Niles  Register,”  188. 


APPENDIX  III 


189 


.  .  .was  that  of  the  powerful  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  numerous  and  strong  ties  which  held  it 
together  are  all  broke,  and  its  unity  gone.  They  now 
form  separate  churches.  .  .arrayed  into  two  hostile 
bodies,  engaged  in  litigation  about  what  was  formerly 
their  common  property.”7  Three  days  later  in  his 
famous  Seventh  of  March  speech  Daniel  Webster  notic¬ 
ed  Calhoun’s  reference  to  the  Methodist  schism,  and 
expressed  himself  as  having  “felt  great  concern,  as 
that  dispute  went  on,  about  the  result....”  He 
thought  the  division  was  needless,  but  did  not  say 
very  definitely  that  he  feared  serious  political  con¬ 
sequences.  8 

Writing  to  a  friend  in  April,  1845,  Henry  Clay  ex¬ 
pressed  himself  positively  on  the  political  tendencies 
of  the  schism.  4  ‘  A  division,  for  such  a  cause,  would  be 
an  event  greatly  to  be  deplored,  both  on  account  of  the 
church  itself  and  its  political  tendency. ...  I  will  not 
say  that  such  a  separation  would  necessarily  produce 
a  dissolution  of  the  political  union  of  these  States ;  but 
the  example  would  be  fraught  with  imminent  danger, 
and,  in  co-operation  with  other  causes  unfortunately  ex¬ 
isting,  its  tendency  on  the  stability  of  the  Confederacy 
would  be  perilous  and  alarming.”9 

The  fact  that  Mr.  Calhoun,  then  Secretary  of  State, 
took  an  active  interest  in  the  doings  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  led  to  a  crop  of  more  or  less  def¬ 
inite  charges  that  he  was  aiding  and  abetting  the 
southern  delegates  in  their  contemplated  separation 
from  the  church.  These  rumors  originated  from  a 


7  “Congressional  Globe,”  1st  session  31st  congress,  vol.  21. 
part  1,  453. 

8  “Ibid.,”  477. 

9  Colton,  “Works  of  Henry  Clay,”  IV.  (correspondence)  525. 


190  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

letter  which  he  sent  to  Dr.  Capers  of  South  Carolina,  a 
prominent  delegate  to  the  Conference  and  later  a 
bishop  in  the  southern  church.  This  letter  which  the 
Doctor  sent  for  publication  in  4  ‘  The  Richmond  Christian 
Advocate,”  and  which  does  not  appear  in  Dr.  Jame¬ 
son’s  “Calendar  of  Calhoun  Letters”  in  the  “Annual 
Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association,”  1899, 
volume  II.,  is  as  follows  :  ‘ 1  My  dear  Sir : — I  have  felt  a 
deep  interest  in  the  proceedings  of  your  conference  in 
reference  to  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Their  bear¬ 
ings,  both  as  it  relates  to  Church  and  State,  demand 
the  gravest  attention  on  the  part  of  the  whole  Union, 
and  the  South  especially. 

“I  would  be  glad  if  you  and  Judge  Longstreet, 
and  other  prominent  members  of  the  conference,  would 
take  Washington  in  your  route  on  your  return  home, 
and  spend  a  day  or  two  with  us,  in  order  to  afford  an 
opportunity  of  exchanging  ideas  on  a  subject  of  such 
vital  importance. 

Yours,  truly, 

J.  C.  CALHOUN. 10 
Washington,  4th  June,  1844.” 

Dr.  Capers  apparently  made  no  secret  of  the  fact 
that  he  had  received  such  a  letter  11  and  even  intimated 
that  possibly  Dr.  Bond  in  referring  to  the  letter  from 
Calhoun  was  trying  to  help  out  the  Whigs  in  a  critical 
campaign.  The  posture  of  political  affairs  made  such 
a  correspondence  of  deep  interest.  The  question  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  then  being  agitated,  the  polit¬ 
ical  campaign  of  1844,  the  well-known  attitude  of 
southern  statesmen  toward  Texas  and  the  Union,  the 


10  “R.  C.  A.,”  Aug.  7,  1851.  The  invitation  was  not  accepted 
nor  was  the  letter  answered.  Wightman,  “Life  of  Capers,”  514. 

11  “C.  A.  and  J.,"  Oct.  i),  Dec.  25,  1844. 


APPENDIX  III 


191 


semi-political  character  of  the  debates  in  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  all  tended  to  create  apprehension 
and  give  added  significance  to  the  act,  when  Mr.  Cal¬ 
houn  evinced  such  a  lively  interest  in  the  doings  of 
the  church.  It  was  easy  to  jump  to  the  conclusion 
that  southern  politicians  were  quietly  backing  the 
Methodist  minority,  and  that  the  division  in  the  church 
was  paving  the  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  their 
half-formed  desire  for  political  separation.  In  an 
editorial  published  December,  1844, 12  Dr.  Bond  said 
some  very  interesting  things  in  this  connection.  .  Re¬ 
ferring  to  the  rising  controversy  over  the  relations  of 
Dr.  Capers  and  Mr.  Calhoun  he  remarked:  “Let  it  be 
remembered  that  we  did  not  charge  him  with  any 
intention  to  aid  in  any  project  for  dismembering  the 
union  of  the  states;  but  we  did  express  our  fears  that 
he  might  be  induced  to  follow  council  which  would 
greatly  contribute  to  this  end — though  the  end  would 
not  be  seen.  We  believed  a  division  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  especially  on  the  question  of  ‘  South¬ 
ern  institutions’  would  sever  an  important  ligament  of 
our  political  union,  and  this  opinion  very  generally 
obtains;  and  it  was  in  reference  to  such  division  that 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends  were  to  be  consulted.  We 
could  be  in  no  doubt  as  to  what  the  advice  would  be. 
We  could  not  be  ignorant  of  what  was  passing  in 
South  Carolina,  in  reference  to  a  Southern  combination 
to  effect  certain  political  purposes,  and  we  enter¬ 
tained  the  general  opinion  as  to  what  such  a  measure 
would  lead.  How  far  the  division  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was,  and  is  now  considered  as  favor¬ 
able  to  the  particular  views  of  the  dominant  party  in 
South  Carolina,  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  the  fol- 


12 


“C.  A.  and  J.,”  Dec.  25. 


192  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 

lowing  extract  from  the  message  of  the  Governor  of 
that  State  to  the  legislature  now  in  session.  ‘Nor  is 
the  refusal  to  ratify  this  treaty,  [annexation  of  Texas] 
so  vitally  important  to  the  South,  the  only  extra¬ 
ordinary  proof  which  the  past  year  has  furnished,  of 
the  exuberant  and  rancorous  hostility  of  the  North  to 
our  domestic  slavery.  At  a  meeting  in  May  last,  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  denomination, 
whose  ecclesiastical  constitution  and  government  bear, 
in  some  respects,  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  political 
Constitution  and  Government  of  this  Confederacy,  a 
pious  Bishop  of  the  South  was  virtually  deposed  from 
his  sacred  office,  because  he  was  a  slaveholder.  It  was 
openly  and  distinctly  stated,  that  the  Methodist  con¬ 
gregations  in  the  non-slaveliolding  states,  embracing  a 
much  larger  proportion  of  the  masses  than  any  others, 
would  no  longer  tolerate  a  slaveholder  in  their  pul¬ 
pits;  a  fact  which  has  been  since  exemplified.  With 
becoming  spirit,  the  patriotic  Methodists  of  the  South 
dissolved  all  connexion  with  their  brethren  of  the 
North.  And  for  this  they  are  entitled  to  lasting  honor 
and  gratitude  from  us.  Other  instances  might  be  cited, 
not  so  striking,  but  equally  decisive  of  the  fact,  that 
the  abolition  phrenzy  is  no  longer  confined  to  a  few 
restless  and  daring  spirits,  but  has  seized  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  in  the  non-slaveholding  States  and 
is  rapidly  superseding  all  other  excitements,  and  tramp¬ 
ling  on  all  other  interests.  It  has  even  been  thought 
that  the  organized  Abolition  vote  might  decide  the 
pending  Presidential  election ;  and  both  parties  at  the 
North  have  been  charged  with  endeavoring  to  con¬ 
ciliate  it  for  their  candidate.  While  England,  en¬ 
couraged  by  these  movements,  and  exasperated  by  our 
Tariff  laws,  is  making  avowed  war  on  us,  that  she  may 
strike  a  blow  at  those  who  are  more  our  enemies  than 


APPENDIX  III 


193 


her’s.’  ”  13  The  governor,  continues  Dr.  Bond,  “evi¬ 
dently  looks  to  the  division  of  our  Church  as  justify¬ 
ing  and  proving  the  necessity  of  the  extreme  measures 
he  contemplates.”  The  editor  is  convinced  that  this 
sudden  interest  of  Calhoun  in  the  debates  of  the  Con¬ 
ference,  the  statements  of  South  Carolina’s  governor, 
and  the  plans  which  they  were  believed  to  cherish 
spelled  destruction  to  the  political  union.  He  based  on 
this  conviction  an  appeal  to  Methodists  to  pause  and 
look  at  what  their  schism  might  be  leading  to.  1  i  Surely 
they  ought  to  make  some  sacrifices  .  .  .  rather  than 
hazard  all  the  evils,  political  and  ecclesiastical,  to  which 
a  division  may  lead.  The  ecclesiastical  consequences 
have  been  very  distinctly  pointed  out ;  but  the  political 
and  social  evils  which  we  may  contribute  to  bring  up¬ 
on  our  country  defy  both  pen  and  pencil.  He  who  can 
contemplate  them,  even  in  the  distance,  with  com¬ 
posure,  must  have  not  only  a  hard,  but  a  petrified 
heart.  ’  ’ 

At  the  time  of  the  Senate  debate  on  the  com¬ 
promise  measures  of  1850  a  writer  in  “The  New  York 
Tribune”  signing  himself  “Sigma,”  charged  that  Cal¬ 
houn,  in  his  March  the  fourth  speech,  in  which  he 
referred  to  the  church  schism,  was  deploring  an  event 
which  he  ‘ 1  did  all  he  could  to  bring  about . . . .  ”  He 
referred  the  editor  of  the  “Tribune”  to  the  files  of 
“The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal”  for  an  ac¬ 
count  of  the  earlier  charges  against  Calhoun  and 
Capers. 14  This  item  caught  the  eye  of  Dr.  Capers’ 
son,  P.  W.  Capers,  who  happened  to  be  passing  through 
New  York  City.  He  at  once  wrote  the  “Tribune” 


13  Only  one  paragraph  of  the  extract  is  here  quoted. 

14  “New  York  Daily  Tribune,”  June  6,  1850. 


194  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


denying  15  “Sigma’s”  charges  and  assuring  him  in  the 
most  unequivocal  terms  that  they  were  untrue. 16 

In  conclusion  we  may  say  that  while  there  was  a 
very  lively  interest  on  the  part  of  the  South  Carolina 
statesman  and  his  followers  in  the  developments  with¬ 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  that  while  their 
well-known  sentiments  had  an  important  indirect  in¬ 
fluence,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  contributed 
much  directly  toward  the  disruption  of  Methodism  and 
the  establishment  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 


15  “Ibid.,”  June  8,  1850. 

16  In  “R.  C.  A.,”  July  17,  1851,  the  editor  (Lee)  took  issue 
with  an  assertion  of  Dr.  Simpson’s  (in  “W.  C.  A.”)  to  the  effect 
that  Calhoun  had  formed  a  constitution  for  a  Southern  Confederacy 
before  his  death  and  had  named  it  The  United  States,  South.  Dr. 
Simpson  had  drawn  inferences  from  its  verbal  similarity  to  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  insinuating  that  the  church  division  had  been 
planned  as  a  prelude  to  political  schism. 


Bibliography 

1.  BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


“A  Working  Conference  on  the  Union  of  American 
Methodism.”  Methodist  Book  Concern,  New  York  and  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  n.  d.  The  meeting  was  held  in  “Harris  Hall,  North¬ 
western  University,  Evanston,  Illinois,”  “Tuesday,  Wednes¬ 
day,  and  Thursday,  February  fifteen,  sixteen,  and  seventeen,” 
1916.  The  report  is  issued  by  “The  John  Richard  Lindgren 
Foundation  for  the  Promotion  of  International  Peace  and 
Christian  Unity.”  Pages  561-88  contain  a  “Bibliography  on 
Separation  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  on  Efforts 
Toward  Unification,”  compiled  by  Samuel  G.  Ayres,  B.  D.,  of 
Garrett  Biblical  Institute.  This  is  by  far  the  most  complete 
and  scientific  bibliography  of  the  Methodist  schism  that  has 
appeared. 

“A  Select  Bibliography  of  the  Negro  American.”  A  com¬ 
pilation  made  under  the  direction  of  the  Atlanta  University 
by  the  Tenth  Atlanta  Conference,  Atlanta  University  Press, 
Atlanta,  Georgia,  1905.  The  Atlanta  University  Publications 
No.  10.  Edited  by  W.  E.  Burghardt  DuBois. 

Hurst,  John  F.,  “Literature  of  Theology.”  A  classified 
bibliography  of  theology  and  general  religious  literature. 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  New  York,  1896. 

Jackson,  S.  J.,  “A  Bibliography  of  American  Church 
History,  1820-1893.”  In  American  Church  History  Series,  vol. 
XII.  441-513.  Christian  Literature  Company,  New  York,  1894. 
Supplement  by  John  Hurst. 

Townsend,  W.  J.,  and  other  editors,  “A  New  History  of 
Methodism.”  2  vols.  New  York,  n.  d.  Bibliography. 

2.  GENERAL  WORKS 

Alexander,  Gross,  “A  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  the  United  States.”  American  Church  History 
Series,  vol.  XI.  Christian  Literature  Company,  New  York, 
1894.  Very  fair-minded. 


196  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Buckley,  James  M.,  “A  History  of  Methodism  in  the 
United  States.”  Christian  Literature  Company,  New  York, 
1896.  Fair-minded,  almost  colorless  and  non-committal  on 
many  moot  points.  Written  from  the  more  obvious  sources. 
Newspaper  sources  little  used.  There  is  a  two  volume  illus¬ 
trated  edition  published  two  years  later,  which  contains 
pictures  of  many  men  prominent  in  the  controversies  of  1844. 

Bangs,  Nathan,  “A  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.”  Third  edition,  revised  and  corrected,  4  vols.  New 
York,  1845. 

Curtis,  George  L.,  ‘‘A  Manual  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  History,  Showing  the  Evolution  of  Methodism  in  the 
United  States  of  America  for  the  use  of  Students  and  Gen¬ 
eral  Readers.”  (DePauw  University  series.)  Hunt  &  Eaton, 
New  York,  1892.  One  of  the  best  manuals.  Reasonable  in 
its  discussion  of  the  schism  though  decidedly  northern  in  its 
point  of  view. 

Daniels,  William  H.,  “The  Illustrated  History  of  Metho¬ 
dism  in  Great  Britain  and  America,  from  the  Days  of  Wesley 
to  the  Present  Time.”  New  York,  Chicago,  Cincinnati  and  St. 
Louis,  1880.  Valuable  especially  for  its  engravings,  maps  and 
charts. 

Garrison,  William  L.,  “The  Story  of  his  Life  told  by  his 
Children.”  4  vols.  The  Century  Company,  New  York,  1885. 

Gorrie,  P.  Douglas,  “History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  Embracing  also,  A  Sketch  of 
the  Rise  of  Methodism  in  Europe,  and  of  its  Origin  and  Prog¬ 
ress  in  Canada.”  R.  Worthington,  New  York,  1881.  Section 
X.  and  parts  of  IX.  and  XI.  deal  with  the  schism.  A  very  color¬ 
less  narrative  with  northern  leanings.  Book  II.  deals  with 
doctrines,  Book  III.  with  polity,  and  Book  IV.  with  benevolent 
and  literary  institutions  and  the  statistics  of  Methodism. 
The  material  covers  the  period  to  about  1850. 

Hurst,  John  F.,  “The  History  of  Methodism.”  7  vols. 
Eaton  &  Mains,  New  York,  1902-1904,  three  volumes  on  Brit¬ 
ish  Methodism,  three  on  American  Methodism  and  one  on 
World-wide  Methodism.  Volume  II.  of  the  American  section 
deals  in  part  with  the  slavery  schism.  Though  general 
and  using  few  sources  outside  the  official  records  it  is  a 
good,  brief  account  from  a  judicial  point  of  view  and  on  the 
whole  accurate  as  to  details.  The  work  is  profusely  illus¬ 
trated. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


197 


Jennings,  Arthur  T.,  “History  of  American  Wesleyan 
Methodism.”  Wesleyan  Methodist  Publishing  Association, 
Syracuse,  1902.  A  good  topical  summary  of  the  history  of: 
the  Wesleyan  branch  of  Methodism  by  the  editors  of  “The 
Wesleyan  Methodist.”  It  makes  no  pretense  at  originality 
in  dealing  with  the  secessions  of  1842-43.  Draws  freely  on 
Matlack,  Lee  and  Buckley. 

Lednum,  John,  “A  History  of  the  Rise  of  Methodism  in 
America,  Containing  Sketches  of  Methodist  Itinerant 
Preachers  from  1736-1785.”  Philadelphia,  1859.  Largely 
biographical. 

Lee,  James  W. ;  Luccock,  Naphtali;  and  Dixon,  James  M., 
“The  Illustrated  History  of  Methodism,  The  Story  of  the 
Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Methodist  Church  from  its  Founda¬ 
tion  by  John  Wesley  to  the  present  day....”  St.  Louis  and 
New  York,  n.  d.  (Copyright  1900.)  Contains  an  interesting 
chart  of  the  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  Methodism,  and 
is  especially  valuable  for  its  portraits  of  Methodist  leaders, 
and  prints  of  buildings  and  scenes  connected  with  Methodist 
history. 

Martin,  Joel,  “The  Wesleyan  Manual,  or,  History  of  Wes¬ 
leyan  Methodism.”  Wesleyan  Methodist  Publishing  House, 
Syracuse,  1889. 

McTyeire,  Holland  N.,  “A  History  of  Methodism. .  .with 
some  Account  of  the  Doctrine  and  Polity  of  Episcopal  Method¬ 
ism  in  the  United  States....”  Southern  Methodist  Publish¬ 
ing  House,  Nashville,  1884.  Dr.  McTyeire  was  one  of  the 
bishops  of  the  Church,  South,  and  gives  an  account  of  the 
rise  of  Methodism  in  Europe  and  America,  the  agents  by 
whom  it  was  brought  about,  the  doctrine  and  polity  of  Ameri¬ 
can  Methodism  and  the  means  and  manner  of  its  extension 
down  to  about  1884.  It  is  a  very  useful  book,  fair-minded, 
but  shows  its  southern  origin.  The  author  has  used  some 
materials  not  readily  accessible,  as  the  manuscripts  and  let¬ 
ters  of  William  Winans,  and  papers  and  correspondence  of 
Bishop  Soule,  though  these  do  not  show  very  definitely  in 
the  narrative.  There  are  some  good  pictures,  a  two  page 
bibliography,  and  an  appendix  of  statistics. 

Porter,  James,  “The  Revised  Compendium  of  Methodism: 
Embracing  the  History  and  Present  Condition  of  its  Various 
Branches  in  all  Countries....”  New  York,  1875.  Many  edi¬ 
tions.  A  calm  recital  of  facts  from  the  northern  viewpoint. 


198  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Simpson,  Matthew,  “Cyclopaedia  of  Methodism;  Em¬ 
bracing  sketches  of  its  rise,  progress  and  present  condition, 
with  biographical  notices  and  numerous  illustrations.”  Fifth 
revised  edition,  Louis  H.  Everts,  Philadelphia,  1883.  Useful 
for  its  brief  biographies,  portraits  of  men  and  pictures  of 
buildings. 

Stevens,  Abel,  “Memorials  of  the  Introduction  of  Method¬ 
ism  into  the  Eastern  States:  Comprising  Biographical  Notices 
of  its  Early  Preachers,  Sketches  of  its  First  Churches,  and 
Reminiscences  of  its  Early  Struggles  and  Successes.”  Boston, 
1848. 

Stevens,  Abel,  “History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America.”  4  vols.  Carlton  and  Porter, 
New  York,  1866,  1867.  (Volume  IV.  has  no  date.)  This 
work  and  that  of  Nathan  Bangs  constitute  the  two  great  stand¬ 
ard  American  works  of  the  older  type  on  the  history  of 
Methodism.  Useful  volumes. 

Townsend,  W.  J.,  Workman,  H.  B.,  and  Eayrs,  George, 
(editors),  “A  New  History  of  Methodism.”  2  vols.  London, 
1909.  The  part  dealing  with  the  schism  was  written  by  John 
A.  Faulkner  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  by  the 
late  Bishop  E.  E.  Hoss  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

3.  BIOGRAPHIES,  LETTERS,  REMINISCENCES 

AND  MEMOIRS 

Asbury,  Francis,  “Journal  of  the  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,” 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  3  vols.  New 
York,  1852. 

Bangs,  Nathan,  “Life  of  the  Rev.  Freeborn  Garrettson; 
Compiled  from  his  Printed  and  Manuscript  Journals  and  other 
Authentic  Documents.”  New  York,  1829. 

Brunson,  Alfred,  “A  Western  Pioneer;  or  Incidents  of  his 
Life  and  Times.”  2  vols.  in  1.  Cincinnati,  1880.  Chapter 
XVIII.  (vol.  1)  gives  an  account  of  the  election  of  James  O. 
Andrew  as  bishop  at  the  General  Conference  of  1832. 

Clark,  Davis  W.,  “Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  Elijah  Hed- 
ding.”  Carlton  &  Phillips,  New  York,  1855.  An  able  bi¬ 
ography  of  one  of  the  important  bishops  of  the  period  of  the 
schism. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


199 


Clarkson,  Thomas,  “The  History  of  the  Rise,  Progress  and 
Accomplishment  of  the  Abolition  of  the  African  Slave-Trade 
by  the  British  Parliament.”  3  vols.  New  York,  1836. 

Colton,  Calvin,  “The  Life,  Correspondence  and  Speeches 
of  Henry  Clay.”  6  vols.  New  York,  1857. 

Crooks,  George  R.,  “The  Life  of  Bishop  Matthew  Simp¬ 
son  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  Harper  and  Brothers, 
New  York,  1890.  Bishop  Simpson  was  a  member  of  the  Con¬ 
ferences  of  1844,  1848  and  1852.  Chapter  XI.  contains  a  rather 
full  discussion  of  the  Conference  of  1844. 

Curnock,  Nehemiah,  [editor]  “The  Journal  of  the  Rev. 
John  Wesley  A.  M..  .enlarged  from  Original  MSS.,  with  Notes 
from  Unpublished  Diaries,  Annotations,  Maps  and  Illustra¬ 
tions.”  Standard  Edition.  7  vols.  New  York  and  Cincinnati, 
n.  d. 

Drew,  Samuel,  “The  Life  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL. 
D.  Including  in  Detail  his  Various  Travels  and  Extraordinary 
Missionary  Exertions  in  England,  Ireland,  America  and  the 
West  Indies....”  New  York,  1837. 

DuBose,  Horace  M.,  “Francis  Asbury:  A  Biographical 
Study.”  Nashville,  1916.  The  best  brief  biography  of  the 
pioneer  bishop. 

DuBose,  Horace  M.,  “Life  of  Joshua  Soule.”  Publishing 
House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Nashville, 
Tenn.,  1911. 

Fitzgerald,  Oscar  P.,  “John  B.  McFerrin:  A  Biography.” 
Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
Nashville,  1888.  The  part  (pp.  153-95)  dealing  with  the  schism 
is  from  a  southern  but  not  offensively  partisan  point  of  view. 

Fitzgerald,  Oscar  P.,  “Dr.  Summers,  [T.  O.] :  A  Life 
Study.”  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville, 
1884.  Not  of  first  importance  for  our  purpose,  although  Dr. 
Summers  was  a  member  of  the  Louisville  Convention  of  1845, 
and  of  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South. 

Green,  William  M.,  “Life  and  Papers  of  A.  L.  P.  Green, 
D.  D.”  Edited  by  T.  O.  Summers.  Nashville,  Tenn.,  1877. 
Contains  a  sketch  of  Joshua  Soule  and  a  chapter  on  the  church 
property  suits. 

Haven,  Gilbert,  “Sermons,  Speeches  and  Letters  on  Slav¬ 
ery  and  its  War  from  the  Passage  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill 
to  the  Election  of  President  Grant.”  Boston,  1869. 


200  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Henkle,  Rev.  Moses  M.,  “The  Life  of  Henry  Bidleman 
Bascom,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.”  Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  Nashville,  1894.  (Copyright  1854.) 
Good  general  account  of  his  life.  Much  interesting  anecdote 
and  detail.  Accounts  of  his  connection  with  slavery  very 
brief. 

Hibbard,  Freeborn  G.,  “Biography  of  Rev.  Leonidas  L. 
Hamline,  D.  D.”  New  York  and  Cincinnati,  1880.  Rather  full 
discussion  of  his  relation  to  the  schism.  He  was  elected 
bishop  at  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

Lee,  Luther,  “Autobiography  of  the  Rev.  Luther  Lee, 
D.  D.”  Phillips  &  Hunt,  New  York,  1882.  An  interesting,  use¬ 
ful  and  intimate  account  of  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  seces¬ 
sion  of  1842-1843.  Not  to  be  confused  with  Luther  M.  Lee, 
editor  of  “The  Richmond  Christian  Advocate.” 

Matlack,  Lucius  C.,  “The  Life  of  Rev.  Orange  Scott,  Com¬ 
piled  from  his  Personal  Narrative,  Correspondence  and  Other 
Authentic  Sources  of  Information.”  In  two  parts.  Published 
by  C.  Prindle  and  L.  C.  Matlack,  at  the  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Book  Room,  New  York,  1847.  There  are  forty-six  pages  of 
autobiography  and  the  whole  work  incorporates  much  per¬ 
sonal  correspondence,  etc.  An  illuminating  account  of  an 
outstanding  man. 

May,  Samuel  J.,  “Some  Recollections  of  our  Antislavery 
Conflict.”  Boston,  1869. 

Olin,  Stephen,  “The  Life  and  Letters  of  Stephen  Olin,  D. 
D.,  LL.  D.”  2  vols.  Harper  and  Brothers,  New  York,  1853. 

Valuable  for  his  correspondence  with  Bishops  Andrew  and 
Wightman  of  the  southern  church. 

Palmer,  Walter  C.,  “Life  and  Letters  of  Leonidas  L.  Ham¬ 
line,  D.  D.”  New  York,  1866.  Some  letters  on  the  schism. 

Pearne,  Thomas  H.,  “Sixty-one  Years  of  Itinerant  Christian 
Life  in  Church  and  State.”  Cincinnati,  1898.  Mr.  Pearne  was 
an  observer  at  the  Conference  of  1844.  Chapter  III.  contains 
a  vivid  account  of  the  Conference. 

Peck,  George,  “Life  and  Times  of  George  Peck,  D.  D. 
Written  by  himself.”  Nelson  &  Phillips,  New  York,  1874.  A 
very  valuable  biography  of  a  key  man.  Chapters  VIII.  X.  XI. 
XII.  and  XIII.  are  pertinent.  Rather  extreme  in  its  northern 
bias. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


201 


Rankin,  John,  “Letters  on  American  Slavery.”  Second 
edition,  1836.  An  excellent  summary  of  the  anti-slavery  argu¬ 
ments. 

Redford,  A.  H.,  “Life  and  Times  of  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  D. 
D.”  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville,  1884. 
Largely  made  up  of  brief  biographies  of  men  who  came  into 
contact  with  Dr.  Kavanaugh.  Touches  the  subject  in  hand 
chiefly  and  then  only  lightly  in  the  bringing  of  Kentucky  into 
the  Church,  South. 

Ridgaway,  Henry  B.,  “The  Life  of  Edmund  S.  Janes,  D. 
D.,  LL.  D.”  New  York  and  Cincinnati,  1882.  Contains  calm 
comments  on  the  schism  of  1844,  and  on  the  repudiation  of 
the  Plan  of  Separation  by  the  General  Conference  of  1848. 
Dr.  Janes  was  elected  bishop  at  the  Conference  of  1844. 

Rivers,  Richard  H.,  “The  Life  of  Robert  Paine,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.”  Nashville, 
Tenn.,  1884.  In  chapter  XIII.  may  be  found  a  good  brief  sum¬ 
mary  of  the  struggle  of  1844-45.  Bishop  Paine  was  one  of 
the  prominent  southern  leaders. 

Roche,  John  A.,  “The  Life  of  John  Price  Durbin,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  with  an  Analysis  of  His  Homiletical  Skill  and  Sacred 
Oratory.”  With  an  Introduction  by  Randolph  S.  Foster. 
Hunt  &  Eaton,  New  York,  1890.  Chapter  IX.  gives  some  ac¬ 
count  of  the  Conference  of  1844  and  Dr.  Durbin’s  part  in  it. 

Smith,  George  G.,  “The  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Osgood 
Andrew,  with  Glances  at  his  Contemporaries  and  at  Events 
in  Church  History.”  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House. 
Nashville,  1883.  A  good  account  of  the  great  bishop’s  life, 
containing  much  original  matter;  letters,  reminiscences,  etc. 

Smith,  George  G.,  “The  Life  and  Times  of  Bishop  George 
Foster  Pierce,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  with  his  Sketch  of  Lovick  Pierce, 
D.  D.,  his  father.”  Sparta,  Georgia,  1888.  A  bulky  work  con¬ 
taining  much  correspondence  on  various  subjects  but  includ¬ 
ing  very  little  on  the  questions  of  slavery  or  separation. 

Stanley,  E.  J.,  “Life  of  Rev.  L.  B.  Stateler;  or  Sixty-five 
Years  on  the  Frontier.”  Nashville,  Tenn.,  1907.  Chapter 
XVIII.,  “Some  Observations  Concerning  the  Division  of  the 
Church,”  is  a  fair  southern  view  of  the  schism. 

Stevens,  Abel,  “Life  and  Times  of  Nathan  Bangs,  D.  D.” 
Carlton  and  Porter,  New  York,  n.  d.  (Copyright  1863.)  Brief 
references  to  Dr.  Bangs’  part  in  the  schism. 


202  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Stewart,  John,  “Highways  and  Hedges;  or  Fifty  Years  of 
Western  Methodism.”  Cincinnati,  1872.  Chapter  XXIV.  con¬ 
tains  some  account  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844  from 
a  moderate  northern  point  of  view. 

Strickland,  W.  P.  (editor),  “Autobiography  of  Peter  Cart¬ 
wright,  the  Backwoods  Preacher.”  New  York,  n.  d.  (Copy 
right  1856.)  Very  interesting  account  of  the  experiences 
of  the  frontier  preacher.  Delightful — a  frontier  classic. 

Summers,  Thomas  O.  (editor),  “Biographical  Sketches 
of  Eminent  Itinerent  Ministers. .  .Pioneers  of  Methodism, 
Within  the  Bounds  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 
Nashville,  Tenn.,  1858. 

Sunderland,  LaRoy,  Manuscript  Statement  on  his  Re¬ 
lation  to  the  Rise  of  Anti-Slavery  Activity  and  Theological 
Education,  in  the  Methodist  Church.  Made  April  22,  1872. 
Has  no  real  title.  It  is  in  the  New  England  Methodist  His- 
torial  Society  Library,  Boston,  Mass.  Very  brief. 

Tuttle,  A.  H.,  “Nathan  Bangs.”  Eaton  &  Mains,  New 
York,  Jennings  and  Graham,  Cincinnati,  n.  d.  (Copyright 
1909.)  Chapter  X.  gives  a  modern  estimate  of  his  relation 
to  the  slavery  controversy.  Tuttle  thinks  him  wrong  in 
favoring  the  moderates. 

Tyerman,  L.,  “The  Life  and  Times  of  the  Rev.  John 
Wesley,  M.  A.,”  Founder  of  the  Methodists.  With  an  appen¬ 
dix  by  Abel  Stevens,  LL.  D.  3  vols.  Harpers,  New  York, 
1872. 

Tyerman,  L.,  “The  Life  of  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield . . . .” 
2  vols.  New  York,  1877. 

Wightman,  William  M.,  “Life  of  William  Capers,  D.  D. 
One  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Including  an  Autobiography.”  Publishing  House  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  1896. 
He  was  a  prominent  figure  in  the  controversies  of  1844.  A 
serviceable  book. 

4.  SPECIAL  PHASES  OF  THE  SLAVERY  CON¬ 
TROVERSY  IN  THE  CHURCH 

Adams,  Alice  Dana,  “The  Neglected  Period  of  Anti- 
slavery  in  America  (1808-1831).”  Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston  and  Lon¬ 
don,  1908.  Radcliffe  College  Monographs  No.  14.  A  care¬ 
ful  and  useful  study  of  an  important  and  little  worked  period. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


203 


Ambler,  Charles  H.,  “Sectionalism  in  Virginia  from  1776- 
1861.”  University  of  Chicago  Press,  Chicago,  1910.  A  sane 
and  careful  piece  of  work. 

Armstrong,  James  E.,  “History  of  the  Old  Baltimore  Con¬ 
ference  from  the  Planting  of  Methodism  in  1773  to  the  Di¬ 
vision  of  the  Conference  in  1857.”  Baltimore,  1907.  Illus¬ 
trates  well  the  conservative  position  of  the  conference  dur¬ 
ing  the  troubles  of  1844. 

Atkinson,  J.,  “Memorials  of  Methodism  in  New  Jersey.” 
Carlton  &  Porter,  New  York,  1860. 

Barclay,  W.  F.,  “Constitution  of  American  Episcopal 
Methodism.”  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nash¬ 
ville,  1902. 

Barnes,  Albert,  “An  Inquiry  into  the  Scriptural  Views  of 
Slavery,”  1846.  One  of  the  most  powerful  refutations  of  the 
scriptural  arguments  for  slavery. 

Bascom,  Henry  B.,  Green,  A.  L.  P.,  Parsons,  C.  B.  (south¬ 
ern  commissioners  for  the  settlement  of  the  property  ques¬ 
tion  between  the  two  churches),  “Brief  Appeal  to  Public 
Opinion,  in  a  Series  of  Exceptions  to  the  Course  and  Action 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  1844  to  1848,  Affect¬ 
ing  the  Rights  and  Interests  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.”  Published  by  John  Early,  Agent  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Louisville,  Ky.,  1848.  A 
criticism  of  the  course  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
respecting  the  new  church  during  the  first  three  years  of 
its  existence.  Very  important;  valuable  appendix;  keenly 
critical,  severe,  heated. 

Bascom,  Henry  B.,  “Methodism  and  Slavery.”  Hodges, 
Todd  and  Pruett,  Frankfort,  Ky.,  1845. 

Buckley,  James  M.,  “Constitutional  and  Parliamentary 
History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  Methodist  Book 
Concern,  New  York,  1909.  The  best  work  on  the  subject. 

Clarke,  J.  F.,  “Anti-Slavery  Days.”  New  York,  1883.  Pirn 
ture  of  agitations  in  Boston. 

Conable,  F.  W.,  “History  of  the  Genesee  Annual  Com 
ference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  1810-1872.”  Nel¬ 
son  and  Phillips,  New  York,  1876.  There  are  a  few  references 
to  the  slavery  conflict  in  that  conference. 


204  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


“Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  Constitutions  and  Charters  of  the  Several  Organizations 
Authorized  by  the  General  Conference,  to  which  is  added  the 
Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  New  York. 

Cook,  J.  R.,  “The  Judicial  Decisions  of  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  An  Introduc¬ 
tion  by  James  M.  Buckley.  Second  edition,  revised  and  en¬ 
larged.  Jennings  and  Graham,  Cincinnati;  Eaton  &  Mains, 
New  York,  n.  d.,  (copyright  1903),  but  revisions  include  de¬ 
cisions  made  in  1904  and  in  1908.  An  appendix  gives  the 
present  organic  law  of  the  church. 

Culver,  Newell,  “Methodism  Forty  Years  Ago  and 
Now....”  Nelson  and  Phillips,  New  York,  1873. 

Curts,  Lewis  (editor),  “The  General  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  1792-1896.  Prepared  by  a 
literary  staff  under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  Curts.  Curts  & 
Jennings,  Cincinnati  and  New  York,  1900.  Discusses  border 
Methodism. 

Elliott,  Charles,  “History  of  the  Great  Secession  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  year  1845,  Eventuating  in 
the  Organization  of  the  New  Church  Entitled  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church,  South.”  Swormstedt  &  Poe,  Cincin¬ 
nati,  1855.  A  work  of  great  importance  for  any  student  of 
the  schism.  Contains  1118  columns  of  closely  printed  mat¬ 
ter.  Based  chiefly  on  newspapers,  being  extracts  from  them 
with  a  running  commentary.  Dr.  Elliott  also  used  many 
other  important  sources.  As  an  appendix  there  are  78  im¬ 
portant  documents  referring  to  the  schism.  As  Dr.  Elliott 
was  a  prime  participant  in  the  events  he  describes,  his  work 
is  in  reality  itself  a  source.  He  adopts  the  point  of  view  of 
strong  opposition  both  to  the  abolitionists  and  to  the  pro¬ 
slavery  South. 

Emory,  Robert,  “History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church.”  New  York,  1845.  A  very  good  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  Discipline  and  its  change  to  the  date  of  the 
schism. 

Finley,  James  B.,  “Sketches  of  Western  Methodism:  Bio¬ 
graphical,  Historical  and  Miscellaneous.”  Edited  by  W.  P. 
Strickland.  Methodist  Book  Concern,  Cincinnati,  1854.  A 
fine  account  of  frontier  life. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


205 


Flood,  Theodore  L.,  and  Hamilton,  John  W.  (editors), 
“Lives  of  Methodist  Bishops.”  Phillips  and  Hunt,  New  York, 
1882. 

Foster,  Randolph  S.,  “Union  of  Episcopal  Methodisms.” 
Hunt  and  Eaton,  New  York,  Cranston  &  Curts,  Cincinnati, 
1892.  A  northern  plea  for  reunion  of  northern  and  southern 
Methodisms.  Favors  reunion  rather  than  federation. 

Fuller,  Erasmus  Q.,  “An  Appeal  to  the  Records:  a  Vindi¬ 
cation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  its  Policy  and 
Proceedings  Toward  the  South.”  Plitchcock  &  Walden,  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  Nelson  &  Phillips,  New  York,  1876.  A  review  and 
indictment  of  Myers,  “Disruption,”  and  almost  as  cutting,  as 
bitter  and  as  sarcastic,  as  Myers.  Painful  reading,  yet  it 
includes  much  matter  drawn  from  the  records.  Accuses 
Myers  of  wilful  misrepresentation, 

Gorrie,  P.  Douglas,  “Episcopal  Methodism  as  it  was  and  is 
or  an  Account  of  the  Origin,  Progress,  Doctrines,  Church 
Polity,  Usages,  Institutions  and  Statistics  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States....”  Miller,  Orton 
and  Mulligan,  Auburn  and  Buffalo,  1854. 

Goss,  C.  C.,  “Statistical  History  of  the  First  Century  of 
American  Methodism:  with  a  Summary  of  the  Origin  and 
Present  Operations  of  Other  Denominations.”  Carlton  & 
Porter,  New  York,  1866.  It  gives  general  statistical  sum¬ 
maries  of  preachers  and  members  by  annual  conferences  to 
1791;  the  General  Conference,  1792  to  1864;  and  then  it  gives 
a  detailed  statistical  description  of  Methodism  in  that  year 
and  a  comparison  with  other  denominations.  Brief  historical 
accounts  are  included  in  the  earlier  parts. 

Hall,  Barnes  M.,  “Life  of  Rev.  John  Clark.”  With  an 
introduction  by  Bishop  Morris.  New  York,  1857.  Interesting 
side  lights  on  the  missionary  to  the  Indians  of  those  days. 
Clark  was  the  only  southern  delegate  to  vote  with  the  North 
on  the  Andrew  case. 

Harris,  William  L .,  “The  Constitutional  Powers  of  the 
General  Conference,  with  Special  Application  to  the  Subject 
of  Slaveholding.”  Cincinnati,  1860. 

Harrison,  William  P.,  “Methodist  Union,  Threatened  in 
1844,  was  Formally  Dissolved  in  1848. ...”  Southern  Methodist 
Publishing  House,  Nashville,  1892.  A  southern  resume  of  the 
story  of  the  schism  with  reference  to  closer  relations  again 
between  the  two  parts  of  Episcopal  Methodism. 


206  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


“History  of  the  Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South;”  comprehending  all  the  official  proceedings 
of  the  General  Conference;  the  southern  annual  conferences 
and  the  General  Convention;  with  such  other  matters  as  are 
necessary  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  case.  Compiled 
and  published  by  the  editors  and  publishers  of  “The  South¬ 
western  Christian  Advocate,”  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  by  order  of  the  Louisville  Convention.  Wil¬ 
liam  Cameron,  Printer,  Nashville,  1845.  (Reviewed  in 
“Methodist  Quarterly  Review.,”  vol.  XXXI.  1849,  282  ff.  See 
also  “Ibid.,”  XXXIII.  396)  Very  important. 

Kerley,  T.  A.,  “Conference  Rights;  or  Governing  Prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  Found 
in  the  History,  Legislation,  and  Administration  of  the  Church.” 
(Edited  by  John  J.  Tigert).  Publishing  House  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Nashville,  1898.  Contains  a 
chapter  (VII.)  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  Plan  of  Sep¬ 
aration.  Southern  in  outlook,  but  calm  and  fair. 

“The  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 
What  it  is,  and  where  to  be  found  and  how  it  may  be 
amended,  as  seen  by  a  layman.”  Hunt  and  Eaton.  New 
York,  1894. 

Leftwich,  W.  M.,  “Martyrdom  in  Missouri.  A  History  of 
Religious  Proscription,  the  Seizure  of  Churches,  and  the 
Persecution  of  Ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  the  State  of 
Missouri,  During  the  Late  Civil  War,  and  under  the  ‘Test 
Oath’  of  the  New  Constitution.”  2  vols.  Southwestern  Book 
and  Publishing  Co.,  St.  Louis,  printed  for  the  author,  1870.  It 
contains  a  brief  resume  of  the  separation  of  1844-45,  from 
a  strongly  partisan  southern  point  of  view.  It  treats  also  in 
the  same  spirit  the  relations  of  the  two  Methodisms,  and 
the  political  animus  of  the  same  after  1845;  and  the  claims 
and  counterclaims  with  respect  to  local  church  property  be¬ 
fore  and  during  the  Civil  War.  Its  chief  raison  d'etre  is  its 
discussion  of  the  martyrdoms  of  ministers  in  that  state. 

Locke,  Mary  S.,  “Anti-Slavery  in  America  from  the  In¬ 
troduction  of  the  African  Slaves  to  the  Prohibition  of  the 
Slave  Trade,  (1619-1808).”  Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston,  1901.  A  care¬ 
ful  and  suggestive  study  of  a  little  worked  field. 

MacDonald,  William,  “History  of  Methodism  in  Provi¬ 
dence,  R.  I.,  1787-1867.”  Phillips  and  Prido,  Boston,  1868. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


207 


Matlack,  Lucius  C.,  “The  Anti-Slavery  Struggle  and 
Triumph  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  With  an  in¬ 
troduction  by  Rev.  D.  D.  Whedon,  D.  D.  Phillips  and  Hunt, 
New  York,  Walden  &  Stowe,  Cincinnati,  1881.  A  valuable 
account  of  the  slavery  struggle  in  the  church  by  one  who 
went  through  it,  seceded  from  the  church  with  others  and 
formed  the  Wesleyan  Church.  He  later  returned  to  the 
original  fold,  becoming  one  of  the  historians  of  the  conflict. 

Matlack,  Lucius  C.,  “The  History  of  American  Slavery 
and  Methodism  from  1780  to  1849;  and  History  of  the  Wes¬ 
leyan  Methodist  Connection  of  America.”  In  two  parts  with 
an  appendix.  New  York,  1849.  Another  work  written 
earlier  than  “The  Anti-slavery  Struggle”  and  therefore  lack¬ 
ing  in  the  calmness  and  finish  of  the  later  book.  Both  em¬ 
body  much  original  material  and  are  valuable  to  the  student 
of  this  schism.  Sometimes  inaccurate  in  detail. 

McFerrin,  John  B.,  “History  of  Methodism  in  Tennessee, 
1783-1840.”  3  vols.  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House, 
Nashville,  1869-73. 

Merrill,  Stephen,  “The  Organic  Union  of  American  Method¬ 
ism.”  Methodist  Book  Concern,  Cincinnati,  1892.  Favors 
closer  union. 

Mood,  F.  A.,  “Methodism  in  Charleston.”  A  narrative  of 
the  chief  events  relating  to  the  rise  and  progress  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  Southern 
Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville,  1855,  second  edition 
1875. 

Mudge,  James,  “History  of  the  New  England  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1796-1910.”  Boston,  1910. 
Gives  a  full  account  of  the  Wesleyan  secession  of  1842-1843. 

Myers,  Edward  H.,  “The  Disruption  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  1844-1846;  Comprising  a  Thirty  Years’  His¬ 
tory  of  the  Relations  of  the  two  Methodisms.”  With  an  in¬ 
troduction  by  T.  O.  Summers,  D.  D.  Nashville,  Tenn.,  Macon, 
Ga.,  1875.  A  strong  but  very  bitter  and  partisan  statement 
of  the  southern  side  of  the  old  conflict  in  view  of  the  overtures 
for  reunion  in  1872. 

Neely,  Thomas  B.,  “History  of  the  Governing  Con¬ 
ference  in  Methodism.”  Cranston  &  Stowe,  Cincinnati,  1893. 


208  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Peterson,  P.  A.,  “History  of  the  Revisions  of  the  Dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  Southern  Metho¬ 
dist  Publishing  House,  Nashville,  1889.  Covers  the  disciplin¬ 
ary  changes  in  the  southern  church  since  1844.  Planned  on 
much  the  same  lines  as  Emory  and  Sherman. 

Redford,  A.  H.,  “History  of  the  Organization  of  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church,  South.”  Southern  Methodist  Publish¬ 
ing  House,  Nashville,  1879.  (Copyright  1871.)  Consists  of 
very  complete  accounts  in  the  words  of  the  official  reports 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  meeting  of  the  southern 
delegates  at  New  York,  the  Louisville  convention  of  1845,  the 
first  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  and  the  prop¬ 
erty  question.  The  appendices  contain  (a)  list  of  delegates 
to  the  Conference  of  1844,  (b)  action  of  the  southern  con¬ 
ferences  in  regard  to  the  division  of  the  church,  (c)  cor¬ 
respondence  concerning  union,  (d)  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  on  the  property  question. 

Sherman,  David,  “History  of  the  Revisions  of  the  Dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  church.”  (Third  edition). 
Hunt  and  Eaton,  New  York,  1890. 

Shipp,  Albert  M.,  “The  History  of  Methodism  in  South 
Carolina.”  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville, 
1883. 

Smith,  George  G.,  “The  History  of  Methodism  in  Georgia 
and  Florida,  from  1785  to  1865.”  Jno.  W.  Burke  &  Co.,  Macon, 
Ga.,  1877.  Much  brief  biographical  material.  Not  as  fair- 
minded  an  account  as  is  found  in  his  later  works. 

Sweet,  William  W.,  “Methodist  Church  Influence  in 
Southern  Politics.”  Reprinted  from  “The  Mississippi  Val¬ 
ley  Historical  Review,”  March,  1915.  Vol.  I.  546-560.  Dis¬ 
cusses  border  troubles. 

Thrall,  Homer  S.,  “History  of  Methodism  in  Texas.” 
Houston,  1872. 

Tigert,  John  J.,  “A  Constitutional  History  of  American 
Episcopal  Methodism.”  Second  edition  revised  and  enlarged. 
Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
Nashville,  Tenn.,  1904.  An  able  and  important  work.  Full 
discussion  of  the  schism  from  a  modern  view  point.  South¬ 
ern,  but  generally  fair  in  tone. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


209 


Wakeley,  J.  B.,  “Lost  Chapters  Recovered  from  the  Early 
History  of  American  Methodism.”  Published  for  the  Author. 
Carlton  &  Porter,  New  York,  1858. 

Weeks,  S.  B.,  “Anti-slavery  Sentiment  in  the  South,” 
with  published  letters  from  J.  S.  Mill  and  Mrs.  Stowe.  In 
Southern  Historical  Society,  Publications,  vol.  II.  Washing¬ 
ton,  1898. 

Whitlock,  W.  F.,  “The  Story  of  the  Book  Concerns.”  Jen¬ 
nings  and  Pye,  Cincinnati,  Eaton  &  Mains,  New  York,  n.  d. 
(Copyright  1903.)  A  handy  little  manual  of  the  Book  Con 
cerns,  and  of  the  periodical  press  of  the  church,  including 
very  brief  biographies  of  the  agents.  Not  always  accurate 
in  detail. 

Wilder,  C.  W.,  “New  England  Annual  Conferences  Against 
Slavery  and  Caste.”  New  England  Historical  Society,  Pro¬ 
ceedings,  January  16,  1893. 


5.  PERIODICAL  LITERATURE 

“The  American  Wesleyan  Observer.”  Issued  weekly, 
January  1  to  September  5,  1840.  Horton  and  Scott,  editors. 
Full  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1840.  Lucius  C.  Matlack  edited  it  while  the  others  were 
away.  It  was  published  at  Lowell,  Mass. 

“The  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal.”  The  chief  organ 
of  Episcopal  Methodism  on  this  continent.  Founded  Sept.  9, 
1826,  at  New  York.  Merged  with  “The  Missionary  Journal” 
of  Charleston,  N.  C.,  1827,  and  the  name  “and  Journal”  added; 
purchased  “The  Zion’s  Herald”  in  1829  and  ‘^Zion’s  Herald” 
added  to  the  name,  which  was  dropped  again  in  1833.  The 
“and  Journal”  was  dropped  in  1870.  The  editors  were: 
Nathan  Bangs  1828-32,  J.  P.  Durbin  1832-36,  S.  Luckey  1836- 
40,  Thomas  E.  Bond  1840-48,  George  Peck  1848-52,  Bond  1852- 
56,  Abel  Stevens  1856-60.  Bitterly  anti-southern  during  the 
troubles  of  1836-1854. 

“The  Lynchburg  Republican,”  Lynchburg,  Va.,  1845-1848. 
Important  for  the  border  conflict. 

“The  Maysville  Eagle.”  Maysville,  Kv.,  1844-1848, 
especially  1847. 


210  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


“The  Methodist  Quarterly  Review.”  Called  “The  Metho¬ 
dist  Review”  since  1879.  Founded  1818,  edited  by  the  Book 
Agents  at  New  York  until  1832,  by  Nathan  Bangs  from  1832 
to  1836,  by  S.  Luckey  to  1840,  by  George  Peck  1840-48,  by 
McClintlock  1848-56.  Several  notable  articles  on  the  schism. 

“The  New  England  Christian  Advocate,”  Lowell,  Mass. 
Luther  Lee  (anti-slavery)  editor.  First  issue  dated  Jan.  7, 
1841,  but  really  issued  in  December,  1840.  Continued  only 
one  year. 

“The  New  York  Tribune.”  Founded  in  1841.  Some  news 
notes  on  the  schism  and  incidents  growing  out  of  it. 

“Niles’  Register.”  76  volumes,  1811-49.  News  items  and 
extracts  from  other  papers. 

“The  Northern  Christian  Advocate.”  Published  then  at 
Auburn,  N.  Y.  The  editors  were:  Rounds  (very  moderate  in 
his  views  on  the  schism)  1844-48;  W.  Hosmer  1848-52;  Hib¬ 
bard  1852-60. 

“The  Philanthropist.”  Birney  and  Bailey,  editors.  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  Ohio,  1836-47. 

“The  Pittsburgh  Christian  Advocate.”  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 
Editor  Hunter  was  one  of  the  most  moderate  of  the  editors 
among  the  Methodists  during  the  bitter  conflict  that  ended 
in  division. 

“The  Richmond  Christian  Advocate.”  Edited  during  the 
controversy,  at  Richmond,  Va.,  by  Luther  M.  Lee,  a  strong 
and  outspoken  partisan  of  the  southern  cause.  One  of  the 
most  important  papers  of  the  period  as  a  source. 

“The  Southern  Christian  Advocate.”  Edited  during  the 
schism  at  Charleston,  S.  C.,  by  Rev.  William  M.  Wightman. 
It  was  a  strong  advocate  of  the  section  in  which  it  was 
published.  Very  useful. 

“The  Southwestern  Christian  Advocate.”  Edited  by  John 
B.  McFerrin,  at  Nashville,  Tenn.  In  1846  its  name  was 
changed  to  “The  Nashville  Christian  Advocate.”  True  to 
its  section  during  the  division. 

“The  True  Wesleyan.”  Organ  of  the  Wesleyan  seceders, 
edited  by  Horton  and  Scott,  Nov.  1842. 

“The  Western  Christian  Advocate.”  Established  in  1834 
at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  The  editors  were:  T.  A.  Morris  1834-36, 
Charles  Elliott  1836--48,  Matthew  Simpson  1848-52,  Elliott 
1852-56.  Dr.  Elliott  favored  the  northern  cause,  but  changed 
his  mind  on  a  number  of  minor  questions.  He  detested  the 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


211 


abolitionists  and  the  southern  seceders,  as  he  called  them. 
The  paper  is  a  very  useful  source. 

“The  Zion’s  Herald.”  Established  in  1823  by  an  associ¬ 
ation  of  New  England  Methodists.  Sold  out  to  “The  Chris¬ 
tian  Advocate  and  Journal,”  in  1829.  Reestablished  in  1833, 
and  continued  in  semi-official  relations  with  the  church. 
Barker  Badger  was  the  first  editor.  In  January,  1835,  it  was 
formally  opened  to  the  anti-slavery  discussion.  During 
part  of  the  controversy  it  was  edited  by  Abel  Stevens.  Pub¬ 
lished  in  Boston. 

“The  Zion’s  Watchman.”  An  anti-slavery  paper  pub¬ 
lished  by  LaRoy  Sunderland  in  New  York  City.  Founded  in 
1836.  Backed  by  an  association  of  Methodists.  The  first 
organ  of  the  radical  abolitionists  within  the  Methodist 
Church. 

6.  CHURCH  DOCUMENTS 

“The  Debates  at  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,”  May,  1844.  To  which  is  added  a  review 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Conference,  by  Rev.  Luther 
Lee  and  Rev.  E.  Smith,  New  York,  1845.  Reported  for  “The 
True  Wesleyan.”  The  thesis  of  the  reviews  was  that  the 
church  had  not  been  converted  to  abolitionism.  Reviews  re¬ 
flect  the  abolitionist  bias  of  the  authors. 

“The  Discipline  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of 
America.”  Boston,  1843. 

“The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.”  1785  to  the  present  time.  Earlier  editions  very 
rare.  Few  full  sets  in  existence. 

“The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.”  Louisville,  Ky.,  1846,  and  later  editions. 

Elliott,  Charles,  “Historical  Scrap  Book.”  Vols.  I.  IV.  VI. 
VIII.  These  consist  of  clippings  from  the  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  periodicals  relating  to  the  schism.  They  are 
well  bound  and  were  “Presented  to  the  Western  Book  Con¬ 
cern  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Jan.  1,  1856,  By 
Charles  Elliott,”  the  compiler.  He  got  these  materials  to¬ 
gether  for  his  immense  work  “The  Great  Secession.”  There 
were  originally  eight  volumes  but  the  others  were  destroyed 
by  a  fire  at  the  Cincinnati  publishing  house.  They  are  a 
mine  of  handy  information,  especially  useful  to  those  who 
are  unable  to  see  all  the  newspapers. 


212  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


“Journals  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.’'  From  1792  to  the  present  time.  Vol. 
II.  contains  the  minutes  of  1840  and  1844  and  the  debates 
of  1844.  Carlton  and  Lanahan,  New  York,  n.  d. 

“Journals  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.”  From  1846  to  the  present  time. 

“A  Journal  of  the  New  England  Conference.”  Manu¬ 
script  minutes  or  journal  of  the  New  England  annual  con¬ 
ference,  long  in  the  possession  of  the  venerable  Dr.  Mudge, 
for  so  many  years  secretary  of  the  conference.  Two  well- 
preserved  volumes  for  the  years  1822-1835,  and  1836-1848  are 
useful  for  the  period  covered  by  the  present  work.  The 
chirography  is  surprisingly  legible. 

“The  Methodist  Church  Case,  at  Maysville,  Kentucky.” 
By  Henry  Waller,  counsel  for  the  complainants,  and  Francis 
T.  Hood,  and  Richard  H.  Stanton,  counsel  for  defendants. 
The  Eagle  Office,  Maysville,  1848.  Records  are  given  of  the 
pleadings  on  each  side,  testimony  in  the  chancery  suit  in 
Mason  Circuit  Court,  arguments  of  counsel,  decisions  of  the 
Circuit  Judge  and  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  Very 
useful  and  well  authenticated  source,  on  an  important  and 
influential  local  property  case.  (Gibson  vs.  Armstrong,  7 
“Ben  Monroe,”  481.) 

“The  Methodist  Church  Property  Case.”  (Ohio.)  Argu¬ 
ments  of  Messrs.  Riddle,  Lane,  and  Ewing,  counsel  for  the 
defendants,  in  the  suit  of  William  A.  Smith,  and  others,  vs. 
LeRoy  Swormstedt,  and  others,  heard  before  Hon.  Judge  H. 
H.  Leavitt,  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
district  of  Ohio,  June  27-July  2,  1852,  with  the  decision  of  the 
Judge.  Swormstedt  &  Poe,  Cincinnati,  1852.  (5  “McLean,” 

369;  Federal  Cases  No.  13,112.)  Judge  Leavitt’s  decision 
favoring  the  northern  contention  was  reversed  by  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court  in  1853.  (57  U.  S.,  288.) 

“Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences.”  (Original 
Pamphlet  Minutes,  known  as  Local  Minutes.)  Few  con¬ 
ferences  published  them  in  the  early  days.  They  include 
resolutions  and  miscellaneous  acts  of  the  conferences.  The 
full  minutes,  however,  were  seldom  published,  and  they  con¬ 
tain  very  little  controversial  material  as  published. 

“Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.”  (Known  as  the  General  Minutes.)  For 
the  years  1773-1828,  vol.  I.  New  York,  1840;  vol.  II.  for  the 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


213 


years  1829  to  1839,  New  York,  1840;  vol.  III.  for  the  years 
1839  to  1845,  New  York,  1846;  vol.  IV.  for  the  years  1846  to 
1851,  New  York,  1854.  Mostly  statistical  and  biographical; 
occasionally  contain  resolutions  passed  by  the  conferences. 

“Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  Between  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Preachers  in  the  Connexion  Established  by  the  Late 
Reverend  John  Wesley,  A.  M.,”  at  their  ninety-second  Annual 
Conference  begun  in  Sheffield  on  Wednesday,  July  29,  1835. 
Third  edition,  London,  1835. 

Sutton,  R.,  “The  Methodist  Church  Property  Case.”  Bas- 
com  and  others  vs.  Lane  and  others.  Lane  &  Scott,  New 
York,  1851.  (Federal  Cases,  No.  1089.) 

7.  PAMPHLETS 

Most  of  these  pamphlets  are  found  in  the  collection  made 
by  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  the  noted  abolitionist,  and  now  owned 
by  the  Cornell  University  Library.  It  is  a  valuable  collection 
preserving  a  vast  amount  of  fugitive  material  which  would 
otherwise  have  been  lost  to  the  historian.  No  student  of 
any  phase  of  the  slavery  question  can  afford  to  ignore  this 
rich  store  of  materials. 

An  American  [J.  G.  Birney,]  “American  Churches  the 
Bulwarks  of  American  Slavery.”  Third  American  edition  en¬ 
larged  by  an  appendix.  C.  Whipple,  Newburyport,  1842. 
Deals  with  the  pro-slavery  side  of  the  controversy  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal,  Baptist,  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  Pro¬ 
testant  churches,  while  a  supplement  considers  briefly  the 
attitude  of  the  Quakers,  Congregationalists  and  some  others. 

Bourne,  George,  “Man-stealing  and  Slavery  Denounced  by 
the  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  Churches  together  with  An 
Address  to  all  the  churches.”  Pp.  19.  Boston,  1834.  Some 
good  material  on  the  early  attitude  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
and  Presbyterian  churches  on  slavery. 

Bowen,  C.  W.,  “Arthur  and  Lewis  Tappan.”  A  paper 
read  at  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  New  York  City  Anti¬ 
slavery  Society  at  the  Broadway  Tabernacle.  Pp.  16.  New 
York,  Oct.  2,  1883.  Brief  account  of  the  early  anti-slavery 
days,  the  formation  of  the  anti-slavery  societies,  etc. 

Brownlow,  William  G.,  “A  Sermon  on  Slavery.”  A  Vin¬ 
dication  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South;  her  posi¬ 
tion  stated.  Delivered  in  Temperance  Hall,  Knoxville,  on 


214  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Sabbath,  August  9,  1857,  to  the  delegates  and  others  in  at¬ 
tendance  at  the  Southern  Commercial  Convention,  Knoxville, 
Tenn.,  1857.  A  typical  array  of  southern  pro-slavery  views. 

Caldwell,  John  H.,  “Slavery  and  Southern  Methodism.” 
Two  sermons  preached  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Newman 
[Newnan],  Georgia,  by  the  Pastor.  Pp.  80.  Printed  for  the 
author,  1865.  A  criticism  by  a  southerner  of  the  slave  power. 
The  author  attempts  to  connect  Calhoun  with  ecclesiastical 
division  as  a  prologue  to  political  secession.  Made  some 
little  stir  at  the  time. 

“Constitution  of  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery  Society:” 
with  an  Address  to  the  public.  Pp.  16.  Garrison  &  Knapp, 
Boston,  1832. 

“Debate  on  ‘Modern  Abolitionism’  in  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  held  in  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  May,  1836,  with  notes.  Pp.  91.  Published  for  the 
Ohio  Anti-slavery  Society,  Cincinnati,  1836.  Taken  from 
“The  Philanthropist”  in  part,  and  in  part  being  the  work  of 
Orange  Scott. 

DeVinne,  Daniel,  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
Slavery.  A  Historical  Survey  of  the  Relations  of  the  Early 
Methodists  to  Slavery.”  Pp.  95.  New  York,  1857.  Relates 
mostly  to  the  period  before  1800.  A  valuable  study. 

Dixon,  James,  “Methodism  in  America:  with  the  Personal 
Narrative  of  the  Author  during  a  Tour  Through  a  Part  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada.”  Second  edition,  London,  1849. 

Henning,  Thomas,  “Slavery  in  the  Churches,  Religious 
Societies,  etc.:  A  Review.”  Pp.  39.  Toronto,  1856.  States 
the  early  attitude  of  the  churches,  missionary  societies  and 
boards  toward  slavery 

Jay,  William,  “Letter  on  the  Reasons  assigned  by  the 
American  Tract  Society  for  its  silence  in  regard  to  Ameri¬ 
can  Slavery.”  Pp.  28.  New  York,  1853. 

Lame,  J.  S.,  “Maryland  Slavery  and  Maryland  Chivalry.” 
Philadelphia. 

Latta,  S.  A.,  “Constitutional  Claims  and  Powers  of  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopacy:”  being  a  review  of  the  discussions  of  the 
late  General  Conference,  and  an  appeal  to  the  North  and 
South  in  favor  of  union.  Pp.  43.  Cincinnati,  1844.  Really  a 
review  of  Bishop  Hamline’s  General  Conference  speech  from 
the  southern  view  point. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


215 


Matlack,  Lucius  C.,  “Narrative  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Ex¬ 
periences  of  a  Minister  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
who  was  Twice  Rejected  by  the  Philadelphia  Annual  Con¬ 
ference  and  Finally  Deprived  of  License  to  Preach  for  Being 
an  Abolitionist.”  Pp.  24.  Philadelphia,  1845.  An  important 
document  taking  one  close  to  the  personal  problems  that 
faced  the  abolitionists  in  the  church. 

Mattison,  H.,  “The  Impending  Crisis  of  1860;  or  the  Pres¬ 
ent  Connection  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  with 
Slavery,  and  Our  Duty  in  Regard  to  it.”  Pp.  136.  New  York, 

1859.  This  pamphlet  contains  much  good  material  on  the 
history  of  slavery  in  the  church  from  1739  to  1859. 

McCarter,  J.  Mayland,  “Border  Methodism  and  Border 
Slavery.”  Being  a  statement  and  review  of  the  action  of  the 
Philadelphia  conference  concerning  slavery,  at  its  late  ses¬ 
sion  at  Easton,  Pa.  Pp.  88.  Philadelphia,  1858.  Contains 
valuable  material  on  border  slaveholding  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  after  1844. 

McKeen,  Silas.  “A  Scriptural  Argument  in  Favor  of 
Withdrawing  Fellowship  from  Churches  and  Ecclesiastical 
Bodies  Tolerating  Slaveholding  Among  Them.”  Pp.  37.  New 
York,  1848.  Resolutions  passed  by  various  churches  about 
slavery. 

“Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  a  Convention  of  Dele¬ 
gates  from  the  Abolition  Societies  Established  in  Different 
Parts  of  the  United  States,”  assembled  at  Philadelphia,  Jan¬ 
uary  1,  1794.  Philadelphia,  1794.  Also  minutes  of  the  sec¬ 
ond  meeting  of  the  convention,  1795;  the  third  meeting,  1796; 
the  fourth  meeting,  1797;  the  fifth  meeting,  1798;  and  the 
seventh  meeting,  1801. 

Pillsbury,  Parker,  “The  Church  as  it  is — or  the  Forlorn 
Hope  of  Slavery.”  Pp.  96.  Boston,  1847.  Second  edition  re¬ 
vised  and  improved.  Republican  Press  Association,  Concord, 
New  Hampshire,  1885. 

Scarritt,  Nathan,  “Position  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  on  the  Subject  of  Slavery.”  Pp.  62.  St.  Louis, 

1860.  Considerable  material  dealing  with  the  period  before 
1860.  Part  II.  considers  the  questions:  Is  the  southern  church 
a  secession?  Is  it  pro-slavery?  Is  it  less  the  friend  of  the 
slave  than  are  the  other  churches?  Its  viewpoint  is  southern. 


216  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Scott,  Orange,  “Address  to  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  Presented  during  its  ses¬ 
sion  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  May  19,  1836,  to  which  is  added  The 
Speech  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Scott,  delivered  on  the  floor  of  the 
General  Conference,  May  27,  1836.  New  York,  1836. 

Scott,  Orange,  “An  Appeal  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.”  Pp.  156.  D.  H.  Ela,  publisher,  Boston,  1838.  A 
valuable  pamphlet  dealing  with  slavery  in  the  church,  the 
Bible  argument,  the  General  Conference  of  1836,  the  con¬ 
ference  rights  controversy,  the  Lynn  Convention,  etc. 

Scott,  Orange,  “The  Grounds  of  Secession  from  the  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church:  being  an  Examination  of  her  Con¬ 
nection  with  Slavery,  and  also  of  her  Form  of  Government.” 
Pp.  96.  New  York,  1846.  An  important  document.  Contains 
the  formal  withdrawal  of  four  men  who  became  leaders  in  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Church,  and  a  review  of  the  position  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  slavery  as  indicated  by  the 
work  of  the  Conference  of  1844.  A  revised,  corrected  and 
considerably  expanded  edition  was  published  in  1848.  New 
York,  1848. 

“Unfavorable  Influence  of  the  American  Churches  on  the 
Progress  of  Emancipation.”  Pp.  8.  This  is  No.  19  of  “Five 
hundred  thousand  strokes  for  freedom,”  a  series  of  anti-slavery 
tracts — “of  which  half  a  million  are  now  first  issued  by 
the  friends  of  the  Negro.”  London,  1853.  Leeds  Anti-slav¬ 
ery  Series.  Contains  many  extracts  from  the  utterances  of 
prominent  men  of  all  denominations  favoring  slavery. 

Whipple,  Charles  K.,  “Relation  of  the  American  Board 
of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  to  Slavery.”  Pp.  247. 
Boston,  1861.  Deals  with  their  relation  to  slavery,  opposing 
their  pro-slavery  policy. 

Whipple,  Charles  K.,  “The  Methodist  Church  and 
Slavery.”  Pp.  31.  New  York,  1859.  Argues  that  even  in 
1859  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  not  an  anti-slavery 
church. 

Wilson,  S.  W.;  Sunderland,  LaRoy;  Storrs,  George;  Mer¬ 
rill,  A.  D.;  Perkins,  Jared,  “An  Appeal  on  the  Subject  of 
Slavery  Addressed  to  the  Members  of  the  New  England  and 
New  Hampshire  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  Together  with  a  Defence  of  said  Appeal  in  which  is 
Shown  the  Sin  of  Holding  Property  in  Man.”  Pp.  48.  Boston, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


217 


1835.  This  is  one  of  the  outstanding  documents  of  the  early 
slavery  conflict  in  the  church.  It  embodies  the  typical  argu¬ 
ments  of  the  abolitionists,  especially  their  opposition  to  the 
Bible  arguments  for  slavery.  “The  Appeal”  is  dated  as  in  an 
earlier  Extra  of  “Zion’s  Herald,”  December  19,  1834.  “The 
Defence”  is  dated  April  22,  1835.  It  was  written  by  LaRoy 
Sunderland  and  had  been  issued  as  an  Extra  to  “Zion’s 
Herald,”  June,  1835. 

8.  MISCELLANEOUS 

“Compendium  of  the  Enumeration  of  the  Inhabitants  anu 
Statistics  of  the  United  States  as  Obtained. .  .from  the  Returns 
of  the  6th  Census....”  Prepared  by  the  Department  of 
State.  Printed  by  Thomas  Allen,  Washington,  1841. 

“Congressional  Globe.”  First  Session  of  the  Thirty-first 
Congress.  City  of  Washington,  1850. 

“The  Federal  Cases.  Comprising  Cases  Argued  and  De¬ 
termined  in  the  Circuit  and  District  Courts  of  the  United 
States  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Beginning  of  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Reporter.  Arranged  Alphabetically  by  the  titles  of  the 
Cases,  and  Numbered  Consecutively”  West  Publishing  Co., 
St.  Paul,  1896. 

“Journal  of  the  Senate  of  South  Carolina.”  Annual  Ses¬ 
sion,  1844.  A.  H.  Pemberton,  State  Printer,  Columbia,  S.  C., 
1844. 

“Report  of  Cases  Argued  and  Adjudged  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.”  December  term,  1853.  By  Ben¬ 
jamin  C.  Howard,  Counsellor  at  Law  and  reporter  of  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Vol. 
XVI.  Little,  Brown  &  Company,  Law  Publishers  &  Book¬ 
sellers,  Boston,  1855. 

“Reports  of  Cases  at  Common  Law  and  in  Equity  Decided 
in  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Kentucky.”  By  Ben  Monroe,  re¬ 
porter  of  the  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  Second  edi¬ 
tion.  H.  W.  Derby  &  Co.,  Publishers,  Cincinnati,  1841-58. 

“Reports  of  Cases  decided  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ap¬ 
peals  of  Virginia.”  By  Peachy  R.  Grattan.  R.  F.  Walker, 
Superintendent  Public  Printing,  Richmond,  1845-1881. 


INDEX 


Abolitionism,  relation  to  other  issues,  23-24  ;  and  the  bishops,  30  ;  at 
the  Conference  (1836),  30;  opposed  by  various  conferences,  34; 
slump  of  interest  in,  47-48. 

Abolitionists,  excluded  from  conference  membership,  39-42  ;  of  N. 
England  opposed  compromise  on  Andrew  case,  76-80. 

Agents  (managers  of  the  Book  Concern  at  N.  Y.),  refused  to  apportion 
profits  of  Book  Concern  to  South,  156-57  ;  had  no  legal  right  to 
offer  voluntary  arbitration,  162. 

Agitation  (in  the  church),  over  controversy  of  1844,  87-88. 

Alabama,  resolutions  in,  honored  southern  Methodists  for  leaving  the 
church,  89-90. 

Albany,  meeting  at,  to  plan  Wesleyan  church,  50. 

Alexander,  G.,  on  duty  of  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  70-71. 

Alexandria,  Va.,  border  conflict  at,  140. 

Andover,  Mass.,  preliminary  Wesleyan  convention  at,  50. 

Andrew,  J.  O.,  early  career  of,  66  n.  ;  rumor  made  him  slaveholder, 
66  ;  not  comfortable  as  bishop,  67  ;  and  the  committee  from  the 
caucus  of  northern  delegates,  68-69  ;  statement  of,  about  his  slaves, 
69  ;  question  on  propriety  of  his  resigning,  70-72  ;  action  of  other 
bishops  respecting,  114-17. 

Andrew  case,  attempts  at  compromise,  75-80. 

Annual  conferences,  as  the  supreme  court  of  Methodism,  107-108; 
votes  of,  against  changing  the  sixth  rule,  117-118  ;  described, 
178-79. 

Anti-slavery  Society,  American,  organized,  24 ;  New  England,  or¬ 
ganized,  24  ;  first  Methodist,  organized,  26. 

Anti-slavery  spirit,  declined,  21-22 ;  revived,  23. 

“Appeal,”  of  members  of  N.  England  and  N.  Hampshire  conferences 
to  fellow  clergy  on  slavery,  27-28  ;  “Defence”  of,  29. 

Appeal,  Harding’s,  at  Conference  of  1844,  60-62. 

Arbitration,  considered,  168-69. 

Arguments,  on  question  of  dividing  property,  commented  on,  154-56. 

Asbury,  F.,  views  of,  on  slavery,  10  ;  met  with  pro-slavery  opposi¬ 
tion,  14-15  ;  experiences  in  S.  Carolina,  19-20  ;  grieved  at  obstacles 
in  way  of  instructing  negroes,  20. 

Baltimore  conference,  Harding  appeal  from,  60-62  ;  division  of  senti¬ 
ment  in  (1844),  94. 

Bangs,  N.,  prosecutor  of  Sunderland  before  N.  England  conference,  41  ; 
on  constitutionality  of  Plan  of  Separation,  104-105 ;  opposition 
to,  for  his  interpretation  of  the  church  constitution,  104-105  ; 
views  of,  on  ultimate  authority  to  decide  validity  of  acts  of  the 
Gen.  Conference,  106-107. 

Bishops,  pastoral  letter  of,  to  the  N.  England  and  N.  Hampshire  con¬ 
ferences,  30;  and  abolitionism,  30' ;  at  Louisville  Convention,  97  : 
action  of,  in  the  light  of  Conference  action  on  the  Andrew  case, 
114-17  ;  met  to  arrange  itinerary,  113-14. 


INDEX 


219 


Bond,  T.  E.,  and  tlie  Slaveholders’  Convention,  55-57  ;  on  a  supreme 
court  of  Methodism,  108  ;  on  attitude  Conference  of  1848  should 
take  on  the  Plan  of  Separation,  121  ;  on  the  border  provisions  of 
the  Plan,  126-27,  131  ;  favored  division  of  church  property, 
149-51. 

Border  conflicts,  131-46  ;  in  western  Va.,  135-38 ;  at  Cincinnati,  O., 
138-40  ;  at  Maysville,  Ky.,  141-46. 

Border  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  126  and  appendix  II  ; 
divergent  interpi-etations  of,  128-31. 

Border  representatives  (Louisville  Convention),  on  separation,  99,  100. 

Border  societies,  disputed  definitions  of,  130-31. 

Boston,  M.  E.  Church  at,  opened  pulpit  to  abolitionist  addresses,  27. 

British  Methodism,  official  address  of,  to  Gen.  Conference  (1836)  31. 

Calhoun,  J.  C.,  and  the  church  schism,  188,  189-94  ;  new  letter  of, 
190  ;  and  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  189-94. 

Cases,  church,  U.  S.  Supreme  court  decision  on,  174. 

Canada,  separation  of  M.  E.  Church  in,  from  the  M.  E.  Church  in  U. 
S.,  110-13. 

Capers,  W.,  resolutions  of,  for  partial  separation,  82-83  ;  chairman  of 
Committee  of  Nine,  83. 

Caucus,  of  southern  delegates  at  Conference  of  1844,  84  ;  declaration 
of,  84  and  84  n.  ;  after  Conference,  90-91. 

Caucuses,  of  various  delegates  at  Conference  (1844),  66,  67-69. 

Causes,  of  vote  against  changing  sixth  rule,  119-20. 

Cazenovia,  convention  at,  38. 

Censure,  of  Storrs  and  Scott,  1836,  31-33. 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  mobs  at,  attacked  preacher,  20. 

Charter  Fund,  history  of,  148  ;  division  of,  173. 

Choate,  R.,  arguments  of,  in  church  suit,  166-67. 

“Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,”  on  slavery  (1843),  56;  on  Slave¬ 
holders’  Convention,  55-57. 

Christmas  conference,  Methodist,  at  Baltimore,  12-13. 

Church,  local,  nature  of,  descxdbed,  180;  press  (northern)  on  Judge 
Nelson’s  decision,  170-71  ;  suits,  U.  S.  supreme  court  decision  in, 
174. 

Cincinnati,  O.,  border  controversy  at,  138-40. 

Circuits,  arguments  as  to  provisions  of  Plan  of  Separation  on,  128-29. 

Clay,  II.,  on  church  schism,  188,  189. 

Coke,  T.,  views  on  slavery,  10 ;  sent  to  America,  12  ;  met  opposition 
in  Ya.  because  of  anti-slavery  views,  14. 

Comment,  of  southern  conferences  on  Plan  of  Separation,  91-94 ; 
(author’s)  on  repudiation  of  Plan,  124-25  ;  (author’s)  on  Method¬ 
ist  schism,  174-76. 

Commissioners,  (southern),  instructions  to,  157-58;  attend  Conference 
(1848),  158-59;  (northern  and  southern)  for  handling  property 
division,  correspondence  of,  158. 

Committee  on  Organization  (Louisville  Convention),  report  of,  99-100. 

Compromise,  tendency  to,  on  slavery  (1785),  14;  attempted  on  An¬ 
drew  case,  73,  75-79;  plans  (1844-1845),  94-96. 

Committee  of  Nine  (1844),  appointed,  83;  second  one  appointed,  84; 
report  of,  85. 


220  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Committee  on  Pacification  (1844),  failure  of,  66. 

Conference,  first  formal  Methodist,  in  America,  11  ;  (1783)  on  slavery, 
12  ;  Christmas  conference  (1784),  12  ;  attitude  of  (1784),  on  anti¬ 
slavery  views  of  leaders,  14;  rules  of  (1784),  suspended,  15. 

Conferences,  annual,  excluded  abolitionists  from  membership,  39-42 ; 
voted  against  changing  sixth  rule,  (first)  156  ;  (second)  162-63  ; 
effects  of  vote,  156 ;  controversy  over  rights  of,  34-39,  45-46 ; 
action  of  (southern),  on  work  of  Conference  of  1844,  and  Plan  of 
Separation,  91-94. 

Constitution,  Methodist  Church,  comparison  of.  with  federal,  103-104  ; 
impossibility  of  final  judicial  interpretation  of,  103-104  ;  described, 
177-81. 

Constitutionality,  of  Plan  of  Separation,  103-26. 

Convention,  Methodist,  at  Lynn,  Mass.,  38 ;  at  Andover,  Mass.,  50  ; 
(southern)  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  called,  91,  met,  96. 

Conventions,  Methodist,  at  Lowell,  Utica,  Cazenovia,  38-39 ;  called 
because  of  Wesleyan  success,  53-55. 

“Counter  Appeal,”  against  N.  England  and  N.  Hampshire  conferences  ; 
“Appeal,”  28-29. 

Court,  supreme,  of  Methodism,  needed,  107-108. 

Davis  (and  Griffith),  resolutions  on  Andrew  case  (1844),  69-70. 

Debate,  on  Harding  case  (1844),  61-62;  on  Andrew  case,  73-75;  on 
Plan  of  Separation,  86-87  ;  in  Louisville  Convention,  98-99 ;  on 
repudiation  of  Plan  of  Separation  (1848),  122-24. 

Decision,  in  Harding  case  (1844),  62;  of  U.  S.  supreme  court  on 
property  question,  174. 

Declaration,  of  southern  caucus,  84 ;  of  independence  of  Methodist 
Church,  South,  99. 

Decline,  in  anti-slavery  spirit,  21. 

“Defence,”  of  “Appeal”  of  N.  England  and  N.  Hampshire  conferences, 
29. 

Delegated  General  Conference,  provided  for,  21. 

Delegates,  (southern)  met  in  NewT  York  (1844),  90-91  ;  (northern) 
not  well  received  on  coming  home,  102-103. 

Dillon,  J.,  driven  from  Parkersburg,  136-37. 

Discipline  of  M.  E.  Church,  attitude  of  Church,  South,  toward,  100-101. 

Dorchester  circuit,  Quarterly  Meeting  Minutes  of,  17  ;  Dorchester, 
D.,  and  conference  rights,  45. 

Effect,  of  Wesleyan  secession  on  M.  E.  Church,  53-57. 

Elder,  presiding,  office  of,  described,  180. 

Elliott,  C.,  and  the  debate  on  the  Plan  of  Separation,  SO ;  changed 
mind  about  constitutionality  of  Plan,  108-10 ;  the  Greeley  of 
the  Methodist  controversy,  110  n. ;  opposed  division  of  property, 
151-52. 

Emory,  R.,  refused  to  put  anti-slavery  motion  at  N.  Hampshire  con¬ 
ference,  34. 

Episcopacy,  Methodist,  described,  179. 

Exemption,  of  southern  states  from  anti-slavery  rules,  IS. 

Finley,  J.  B.,  resolutions  of,  at  Conference  of  1844,  72-73  ;  resolutions 
passed,  80  ;  opposed  division  of  property,  152-53. 


INDEX 


221 


Garrettson,  F.,  emancipated  his  slaves,  10. 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  praised  opening  of  M.  E.  Church  in  Boston  to  aboli¬ 
tion  speakers,  27. 

General  Conference,  (1796)  on  slavery,  16  ;  (1796  and  1800)  effective¬ 
ness  of  rules  of,  17  ;  (1804)  waning  of  anti-slavery  zeal  seen  at, 
18  ;  (1808)  provided  for  delegated  Conference,  20-21  ;  on  slavery, 
18-19;  (1836)  abolitionist  delegates  at,  30;  British  Methodist 
address  at,  31  ;  Storrs  and  Scott  censured  at,  31-32 ;  pastoral 
address  of,  33-34;  (1840)  on  slavery,  22;  on  conference  rights, 
45-46;  (1844)  divergent  views  as  to  prospects  at,  58;  first  meet¬ 
ing  and  appearance  of,  59  ;  personnel,  59-60  ;  diverse  elements  at, 
59-60  ;  committee  on  slavery  created,  60  ;  Harding  case  at,  60-62  ; 
Committee  on  Pacification  appointed,  63  ;  Olin’s  speech  at,  63-65  ; 
failure  of  pacification,  66  ;  rumor  of  Andrew's  slaveholding,  66 ; 
caucuses  of  delegates  at,  66,  67-69,  84  ;  Griffith  and  Davis  resolu¬ 
tion  at,  69-70;  Andrew’s  resignation  considex*ed,  70-72;  Finley 
substitute  resolution,  72-73 ;  compromise  on  Andrew  case,  con¬ 
sidered,  73  n.,  75-80;  debate  on  Andrew  case,  73-75;  Finley  sub¬ 
stitute  passed,  80  ;  partial  separation  resolution  (Capers’),  82-83; 
Committee  of  Nine  Appointed,  83  ;  caucus  of  southern  delegates, 
84  ;  second  Committee  of  Nine  appointed,  84  ;  report  of  Committee 
of  Nine  (Plan  of  Separation),  85  ;  Plan  of  Separation  adopted,  87  ; 
Plan  in  full,  182-86  ;  controversies  in,  agitate  church.  87-88  ;  J. 
Calhoun  and,  191-94;  (1848)  prospects  of  Plan  at,  120-22;  meet 
ing  of,  122  ;  refused  to  accept  fraternal  delegate  of  South  at,  122  ; 
debate  in,  on  repudiation  of  Plan,  122-24 ;  declared  Plan  null 
and  void,  122 ;  author’s  comment  on  repudiation,  124-25 ;  com¬ 
missioners  of  Church,  South  and,  158-59. 

General  Conference,  South,  and  the  old  discipline,  100-101;  (1846) 
on  refusal  of  Agents  to  divide  Book  Concern  profits,  156-57. 

Georgia,  exempted  from  anti-slavery  rules,  18. 

Gray,  V.,  mobbed  at  Salem,  132-34. 

Greeley,  and  Elliott  compared,  110  n. 

Griffith  (and  Davis)  resolution,  69-70. 

Guilford,  Va.,  border  contest  at,  134-35. 

Harding,  F.,  appeal  (1844),  60-62. 

Hargis,  J.,  threatened  with  violence  at  Guilford,  134-35. 

Hedding,  E.,  refused  presidency  of  Meth.  Anti-slavery  Society,  26  ; 
declared  radical  excitement  at  end  (1842),  48  ;  backed  New  Eng¬ 
land  abolitionists  opposed  to  compromise  (1844),  77-80. 

Holston  conference,  division  of  opinion  in.  92-93. 

Illinois  conference,  on  supreme  court  of  Methodism,  107-108. 

Inability,  of  each  party  to  understand  the  other,  51-52. 

Interpretations,  divergent,  of  border  provisions  of  the  Plan,  128-31. 

Leavitt,  (Judge),  decision  of,  in  Ohio  property  suit,  171-72. 

Lee,  L.,  on  attitude  of  coming  Conference  (1848)  toward  Plan,  121-22. 

Lord,  D.,  arguments  of,  in  New  York  property  case.  164-66. 

Louisville,  Ky.,  convention,  called,  91  ;  meeting  and  organization,  96 
97  ;  debate  in,  98-99  ;  report  of  Committee  of  Organization  of. 
adopted,  100. 


222  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Lowell,  Mass.,  church  conflict  at,  settled,  49. 
Lynn,  Mass.,  first  Methodist  convention  at,  38. 


Matlack,  L.  C.,  associated  with  Scott  at  Lowell,  40  ;  aids  in  organiz¬ 
ing  a  Meth.  Abol.  Society,  40  n.  ;  excluded  from  Philadelphia  con¬ 
ference,  39-40. 

Maysville,  Ky.,  border  controversy  at,  141-46 ;  the  church  at,  141  ; 
church  gets  separation  fever,  141  ;  vote  in,  on  joining  Church, 
South,  142  ;  conflict  over  use  of  church  edifice,  143 ;  case  in 
the  courts,  143-46. 

McLean,  (Judge),  as  peacemaker,  172-73. 

Methodist  Church,  beginnings  of,  in  America,  11  ;  first  formal  con¬ 
ference  of,  11  ;  made  independent,  12-13  ;  personified  new  humani¬ 
tarian  spirit,  11  ;  growth  of  pro-slavery  in,  22  ;  revival  of  anti¬ 
slavery  zeal  in,  25  ;  first  anti-slavery  society  in,  26  ;  difficulties 
of,  caused  by  slavery,  29-30 ;  press  of,  on  Wesleyan  movement 
(1842-43),  51-52;  effect  on,  of  Wesleyan  secession,  53-57;  con¬ 
stitution  of,  103-105,  170-71  n.,  177-81  ;  Agents  of,  at  New  York, 
refuse  to  divide  Book  Concern  profits  with  South,  156-57  ;  press 
of,  on  action  of  Conference  (1848)  on  property  question,  160-61  ; 
statistics  of,  177. 

Methodist  Church,  South,  and  the  old  Discipline,  100-101  ;  see  also 
under  “Louisville  convention,”  “Border  controversy,”  “Property 
question,”  etc. 

Minority  repoi’t  (1844),  81. 

Missionaries,  Methodist,  in  British  West  Indies,  15. 

Misunderstandings,  by  North  and  South,  of  each  other,  127-28. 

Moderates,  did  work  of  abolitionists  (1844),  76-78. 


Nelson,  (Judge),  decision  of,  in  New  York  suit,  169-70. 

New  Market,  N.  H.,  convention  at,  54. 

New  England  conference,  affected  by  abolitionist  agitation,  26  ;  anti¬ 
slavery  society  formed  in,  26-27  ;  “Appeal”  of,  on  slavery,  27-28  ; 
and  N.  H.  conference,  pastoral  letter  to,  on  abolition,  30  ;  conflict 
with  Bishop  Waugh  in,  35-36  ;  Sunderland  and,  41-42. 

New  Hampshire  conference,  formed  anti-slavery  society,  27  ;  “Appeal” 
of,  on  slavery,  27-28  ;  Bishop  Emory  refused  to  put  anti-slavery 
motion  in,  34. 

New  York  City,  petition  from,  to  Conference  (1840),  44-45;  convention 
in  (1840),  46-47  ;  Conference  (1844),  meets  in,  59. 

North,  reply  of,  to  minority  protest  (1844),  81. 

North  Carolina,  exempted  from  anti-slavery  rules,  18. 

Northern  delegates  at  Conference  of  1844,  and  Andrew,  68-69. 

Northwest  Ordinance,  and  slavery  in  the  church,  14  n. 

Ohio  conference  (1835),  opposed  abolitionists,  34. 

Ohio  suit  (Cincinnati  Book  Concern),  decision  in,  171-72. 

Olin,  S.,  speech  of,  at  Conference  of  1844,  63-65  ;  spirit  of  speech  still 
lived,  82. 

Opposition,  northern,  to  Plan  of  Separation,  102-103. 

Organization,  Committee  of,  at  Louisville  Convention,  report,  99-100. 


INDEX 


223 


Pacification,  Committee  on  (1844),  63. 

Parkersburg,  Va.,  border  controversy  at,  136-38. 

Pastoral  Address,  of  Conference  of  1836,  33-34. 

Pastoral  letter,  to  N.  H.  and  N.  England  conferences,  on  abolition,  30. 

Peck,  J.  T.,  on  property  question,  153-54. 

Petition,  from  N.  Y.  City  to  Conference  (1840),  44-45. 

Philadelphia,  anti-slavery  convention  at,  16-17. 

Philadelphia  conference,  Matlack  excluded  from,  39-40. 

Pierce,  L.,  refused  recognition  as  fraternal  delegate,  by  M.  E.  Con¬ 
ference  (1848),  122. 

Plan  of  Separation  (Report  of  Committee  of  Nine),  presented,  85; 
fear  effect  of  outburst  of  pro-slavery  feeling  on,  85  ;  debate  on, 
86-87  ;  adopted,  87  ;  rise  of  opposition  to,  in  North,  102-103  ;  con¬ 
stitutionality  of,  103-26  ;  and  the  fifth  restrictive  rule.  105-106  ; 
and  third  restrictive  rule,  106  ;  Elliott  changed  mind  on,  108-10  ; 
and  the  Canadian  precedent,  110-13  ;  prospective  atitude  of  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848  on,  120-22  ;  repudiation  of,  by  Conference  of  1848, 
124  ;  border  provisions  of,  126,  182-83  ;  divergent  interpretations 
of  border  provisions  of,  128-31  ;  a  southern  interpretation  of, 
illustrated,  137 ;  property  provisions  of,  147,  183-86 ;  declared 
valid  by  court  in  N.  Y.  property  suit,  169-70  ;  validated  by  U.  S. 
supreme  court,  174. 

Political  bearings  or  parallels  of  Methodist  Church  schism,  14  n.,  20- 
21,  31,  35-36,  47,  55,  58  n.,  65  n.,  81  n.,  87,  88,  89-90,  91  n., 
92,  94,  95  n.,  100  n.,  103-104,  107,  135,  140,  145-46,  156  n.,  170 
n.,  187-94. 

Postponement,  failure  of  (1844),  79;  of  property  question  suggested, 
153. 

Presentments  of  “Western  Christian  Advocate,”  and  “Christian  Advo¬ 
cate  and  Journal,”  by  grand  juries,  140. 

Preachers,  local,  and  slavery,  12  ;  traveling,  and  slavery,  12. 

Precedent,  Canadian,  of  separation,  110-13. 

Property,  local  church  suits  over,  145-46  n.  ;  division  of,  favored  by 
Dr.  Bond,  149-51  ;  division  of,  opposed  by  Dr.  Elliott,  151-52 ; 
postponement  proposed,  153  ;  clashing  opinions  on,  148-49  ;  Con¬ 
ference  of  1848  on,  159-60 ;  voluntary  arbitration  found  illegal, 
162 ;  suits  on,  begun,  162-63 ;  New  York  suit  on,  164-71  ;  arbi¬ 
tration  considered,  168-69 ;  Ohio  suit,  decision,  171-72  ;  Judge 
McLean  as  peacemaker,  172-73;  agreement  reached  (New  York), 
173  ;  U.  S.  supreme  court  decision  on,  174 ;  provisions  of  the 
Plan  on,  147,  183-86. 

Protest,  minority  (1844),  81. 

Pro-slavery,  outburst  of  feeling,  feared,  85. 

Providence  district,  Scott  removed  from  presiding  eldership  in,  40. 


Radicals,  consideration  of  secession  from  M.  E.  Church  by,  43-44. 
Reply  (northern),  to  protest  (1844),  81. 

Report  of  Committee  of  Nine  (Plan  of  Separation),  presented,  85. 
Report  of  Committee  on  Organization  (Louisville  Convention),  adopted. 
100. 

Repudiation  of  Plan  of  Separation  by  Conference  of  1848,  124. 


224  SCHISM  IN  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH,  1844 


Resolutions,  of  southern  meetings  on  action  of  Conference  (1844)  on 
Andrew  case,  and  on  the  Plan,  88-89. 

Rights,  conference,  controversy  over,  34-39. 

Rule,  fifth  restrictive,  and  the  Plan,  105-106 ;  third  restrictive,  and 
the  Plan,  106 ;  annual  conferences  vote  against  changing  sixth 
restrictive,  117-18;  second  vote  on  changing  sixth  rule,  162-63. 

Rules  against  slavery,  enforcement  of,  17  ;  six  restrictive  rules  sum¬ 
marized,  178. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  border  controversy  at,  140. 

Salem,  border  controversy  at,  132-34. 

Schism,  The,  general  comment  on,  174-76;  influence  of,  on  political 
secession,  187-94,  see  also  under  “Political  bearings ;”  Henry 
Clay  on,  188,  189  ;  Calhoun  and,  188,  189-94. 

Scott,  O.,  early  life,  25  ;  joined  abolitionists,  25  ;  and  N.  England  con¬ 
ference  study  abolitionism,  26 ;  led  abolitionists  at  Conference 
(1836),  30-31;  Conference  (1836)  resolutions  censuring,  32;  Mat- 
lack  associated  with,  at  Lowell,  40 ;  removed  from  presiding 
eldership,  40;  delegate  to  Conference  (1840),  43;  considered  seces¬ 
sion,  43-44  ;  called  New  York  City  convention,  46  ;  in  retirement, 
47  ;  and  the  Lowell  rebellion,  48-49  ;  decided  to  secede,  49  ;  cor¬ 
respondence  of,  suggesting  new  church,  49-50. 

Secession,  considered  by  radicals,  43-44  ;  begun,  48  ;  reasons  of  Scott, 
Prindle,  Sunderland  and  others  for,  50  ;  political  secession,  influ¬ 
ence  of  church  schism  on,  187-94. 

Separation,  of  North  and  South  proposed,  33  ;  partial,  Capers’  resolu¬ 
tions  on  (1844),  82-83. 

Slaveholders’  Convention,  55-56. 

Slavery,  first  Methodist  conference  on,  11  ;  Christmas  conference 
(1784)  on,  13;  Conference  (1796)  on,  16. 

Soule,  J.,  slandered  by  Sunderland,  41  ;  clash  with  Sunderland,  42 ; 
and  the  other  bishops,  114-17. 

South  Carolina,  exempted  from  anti-slavery  rules,  18  ;  got  special 
edition  of  Discipline,  19  ;  feeling  in,  on  account  of  anti-slavery 
attitude  of  church,  19  ;  governor  of,  on  Conference  (1844),  192- 
93. 

“Southern  Christian  Advocate,”  alarmed  at  Dr.  Bond’s  changed  views 
on  slavery,  56. 

Southern  Methodist  church  press,  on  action  of  Conference  (1848)  on 
property  question,  160-61. 

Southerners,  honor  Methodists  of  South  for  leaving  their  church,  89- 
90. 

Smith,  W.  A.,  headed  movement  (church)  to  separate  from  North 
(1836),  33;  and  the  Va.  resolutions,  93. 

Spirit,  of  fair  play,  82. 

Sprague,  on  effects  of  episcopal  opposition  to  conference  action  on 
slavery,  38  n. 

Statistics,  of  M.  E.  Church  (1844),  177. 

Suits,  property,  begun,  162-63  ;  New  York,  164-71  ;  decision  of  Judge 
Leavitt  on  (Ohio),  171-72;  decision  of  U.  S.  supreme  court  on, 
174. 


INDEX 


225 


Sunderland,  L.,  and  Methodist  Anti-slavery  Society,  26  ;  conflict  with 
N.  England  conference,  41-42  ;  clash  with  Bishop  Soule,  42 ;  re¬ 
pudiated  orthodox  Christianity,  42. 

Superintendency,  general,  and  the  Plan  of  Separation,  106. 

Supreme  court  of  Methodism  needed,  107-108  ;  U.  S.,  decision  of  prop¬ 
erty  question  by,  174. 

Tomlinson,  and  the  Maysville  case,  142. 

Trial  and  appeal,  and  the  Plan  of  Separation,  105-106. 

Unanimity,  of  southern  conferences,  not  complete  (1844-1845),  92-93. 

Utica,  N.  Y.,  convention  at,  38  ;  organizing  Wesleyan  connection 
at,  50-51. 

Validity,  of  acts  of  Genei*al  Conference,  Dr.  Bangs  on,  106-107. 

Violence,  threatened  to  preachers  and  bishops,  14-15  ;  in  Charleston. 
S.  C.,  20. 

Virginia,  (and  Kentucky)  resolutions,  referred  to,  107  ;  local  preachers 
in,  given  time  to  comply  with  new  emancipation  rules,  12  ;  border 
conflict  in,  131-38. 

Vote,  of  annual  conferences  against  changing  sixth  rule,  117  n.,  118  : 
reasons  for  adverse  vote,  119-20. 

Waugh,  conflict  with  New  England  conference  over  abolitionism,  35-36. 

West  Virginia,  new  state  of,  foreshadowed,  135. 

Wesley,  J.,  views  on  slavery,  9  ;  and  independence  of  American  Method¬ 
ism,  12. 

Wesleyan,  secession,  effects  of,  on  M.  E.  Church,  53-57  :  connection 
organized,  50-51  ;  societies,  approved  organization  of  new  con¬ 
nection,  50. 

“Zion’s  Herald,”  opened  to  anti-slavery  articles,  26  ;  on  conventions  in 
M.  E.  Church,  53. 

“Zion’s  Watchman,”  41,  47. 


'BOUNDARY'  LINE  BETWEEN 
*‘rR£EfX)M  rtWO  SLAVERY 


"re^AS 


i  e^ct 

TEc  rume-S  of  the,  arov^al 

Confe-TtYvCes  Ore,  uYvAerlmei, 

tkms  —  NortTt  0k>o, 

State,  bou.Yviar(Ds  t/vus  ••— ■ 

UTV.IeS5  tKcy  Coincide  u/ifk 
coY^ereTVtfc  Imts  are- 

5  K Oal w  tK  U.  5  •  mm—  m.  - 

tAaf  cTreuvn.  by 
/V\iss  MaTiOYu  Vj.Tosaick 

Alfred,  N.Y. 


HAP  OF  THE 

ANNUAL  CONFERENCES 

OF  THE 

METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

AS  THEY  WERE  MAY  1 1844 


\ 


t 


Date  Due 


. 

RSMRS-— 

• 

. 

jtf  . 

*  *  1 

yf-11' . . 

*&6- 

- - — 

— 

.'TO  '  i  J-  t) 

«  nWraWpafs^W®**-” 

•«* 

ii  ■■ii»mn  IBWBN 

1  1 

r- 

flWFysr*!! 

/ 

ss 

p>pu!!5^ill,WBr 

**^**T»m»- 1  iijlHff  " 

MOV  2  7  2 

006 

